Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klara Kedem

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) — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Klara Kedem

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

May fail WP:ACADEMIC. SarahStierch (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I clicked on the Google Scholar link in the AFD and saw a number of papers with 100+ hits, including a first-author paper with 300+ hits. So on first glance, Klara Kedem appears to pass WP:ACADEMIC. It's better to only bring it to AFD if you actually believe that it doesn't have notability (e.g., fails WP:ACADEMIC), and have some reason for thinking so. --Lquilter (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information given about the article's subject does not meet the notability requirements. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean, "The information given in the article ... does not meet" notability? Because that is not the same thing as NOT notable. A quick search shows that this scholar is notable, so the appropriate thing is to tag the article to improve the content -- not to delete it. --Lquilter (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as article creator). I believe that the article is adequately sourced for its content and that, with Google scholar citation counts of 571, 307, 172, 122, etc she clearly passes WP:PROF#C1. The press story on her research into medieval writing helps make the article less dry but also makes a (weak) case for WP:PROF#C8 as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May pass WP:ACADEMIC. —Ruud 16:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Eppstein etc. Nominator is advised to consult WP:Prof and WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it satisfies WP:ACADEMIC, but is it verifiable? One of the reasons for deletion is "thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Oddly, third-party sources are not explicitly mentioned, but WP:V does say "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In this article, there is a third-party source for the deciphering of handwritten medieval Hebrew. That is interesting, but is it enough? RockMagnetist (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2012 (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.