Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Goff

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Goff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is my first time suggesting an WP:AfD and am up for a discussion. Reading this articles edit history leads me to believe this was created for self promotion. I read the qualifications for deletion and articles on a living person. I don't think I am stepping on any toes. Please let me know if I am doing something incorrectly. Augu❤Maugu 💕 02:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Augu❤Maugu 💕 02:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I see five books with over 100 citations, that is a lot especially in a low-citation field. That should pass WP:NPROF. While maybe self promotion was initially involved, that does not make the subject less notable. It needs to be cleaned up per WP:RESUME, deletion is not the right course of action but improvement is. --hroest 04:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep The subject is clearly notable, and AfD is not cleanup. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expanding a bit on my initial comment, I would be very cautious about suggesting self-promotion. There is a significant difference between a perceived promotional tone, and self-promotional editing. With the latter I would be concerned about outing an editor's identity.

    As to the content of the article itself, there was some wording which could have been more neutrally phrased and I have made some small copyedits to that end. More detail could certainly be added to flesh the article out some more, as at the moment it primarily details various positions without explaining their impact. To be fair, that extra step is often the trickiest part of writing biographies about academics. In cases where an article's tone does need work then clean-up is needed; deletion should only be explored as an option if there are notability concerns.

    Goff is demonstrably a notable subject, and her work has been reviewed by various independent reliable sources (eg 1, 2, 3, and 4 from a very quick search of Google Scholar). So with reliable sources discussing her work, we have a clear case for Goff's notability. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as per the above two comments, the article could do with some improvement but that is not grounds for deletion, the subject has several notable publications (extremely high citation rate for Classics; reviewed in key journals (e.g. [Philology], The Classical Review - these and others could be useful for improving the article. Eritha (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as based on her publications she seems quite notable in her field. SunDawn (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep the subject is clearly notable and the article is well supported. The deletion tag should be removed asap Srsval (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are enough reviews of books to make WP:NAUTHOR convincing, and plenty of citations (in a lower citation field) for WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Current listed sources passes WP:NAUTHOR. Sliekid (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to meet WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - for all mentioned above. Jooojay (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per all the valid reasons and analysis above. Luciapop (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:NAUTHOR, her works have been reviewed in multiple journals. --Ashleyyoursmile! 13:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons listed above Kaybeesquared (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.