Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prof Jacqueline Eales

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 except signature updates.

The result was No consensus to delete.. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prof Jacqueline Eales

Seems unremarkable person αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 17:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Non notable... Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lately I keep seeing people treat "non" as if it were a standalone word rather than a prefix. Have they completely stopped teaching the concept of prefixes? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not comment on the commentator... your comment is taken as a personal attack. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 12:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: Also has a duplicate article under Jacqueline Eales which was created by same person today. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I closed the duplicate AfD and redirected the duplicate article to this one. We can sort out what the proper name for the article should be later, if it survives this AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wildly un-notable. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:PROF. JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhshah (talk • contribs) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep Two major books by importanbt publishers. That would be enough as an author, and the professorship adds to it. DGG (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May be notable, however, contributions to huge multi-editor works such as dictionaries don't seem to qualify as notable unless there are reliable independent references that indicate her contributions are unusually important within the realm of reference publications (asserted, but not backed up). --Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Notable author satisfies professorial inclusion standards. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly valid - David Gerard (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A leading academic in her field, as worthy of near-automatic inclusion as people who kick, carry, throw or otherwise interact with spheroid objects in the field of sport, &c. The content of the article appears to be able to meet WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:NOR (although some references would be good) so unless it offends against WP:BLP or WP:NOT, it is line with our inclusion policies. What the guidelines might say is of no interest, I stopped paying any attention to those a long time ago. As for the name, the good professor's own website says Jackie Eales and that's how she signed a letter to the Telegraph. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL there appears to be significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2008 (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.