Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Ansari

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) — Za wl 13:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Ansari

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

not really much in terms of significant and in-depth, independent coverage of subject from reliable sources. Nothing in article, nothing found on a web search to satisfy GNG Rayman60 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would the article not satisfy criterion 5 of Wikipedia:Notability (academics)? Richard Nevell (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily satisfies the GNG and other criteria for academics and authors. I note sole author books published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press which have been the subject of in-depth reviews. The nominator doesn't appear to have looked very far for sources. WP:BEFORE applies here. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject conclusively passes PROF 1, with books by top academic presses and several of them having >300 holdings according to WorldCat. Please close to avoid wasting other eds' time. Agricola44 (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep only two books, and two other edited volumes. They are widely received, but still it just barely passes the indications for notable impact. I have a few people I am thinking of creating articles on who probably rise to this level, but I am holding back for them to have a little more impact in the historical profession.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG easily. -- Dane ^talk 06:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Adequate publications and accomplishments. Montanabw^(talk) 07:26, 1 October 2017 (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.