Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynthia Larive

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. Withdrawing nomination due to clear consensus to keep the article. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Larive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

After reading this article. I don't see anything that makes this person notable. I doubt a college degree merits notibility. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@VegasCasinoKid: did you overlook basically every sentence in the whole article except the one in the "Education" section? The first sentence of the whole article says she's a college dean, the section about her career says she's editor-in-chief of one of the NSF's libraries, and there's a whole Awards section detailing her several from ACS, and a fellow of both AAAS and IUPAC? Keep per all that. DMacks (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks:, I did read it yes, but the name doesn't ring a bell with most people. Should we write an article about every college professor that wins an award? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DMacks; she's a college dean, AAAS Fellow, and former ACS division chair. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. At best, nominator has misread the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have no idea what the nominator was thinking but "the name doesn't ring a bell with most people" is one of the dumbest arguments I've seen for why an article should be deleted. Fame=/=notability.*Treker (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily satisfies WP:ACADEMIC. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies WP:ACADEMIC. That said, the lead isn't very strong, so I'm going to improve it. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She may or may not pass WP:PROF#C1 (reasonably well-cited pubs in Google scholar [1]) but the much more clearcut case is WP:PROF#C3 (fellow of multiple societies for which this is a highly selective honor). —David Eppstein (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A GS h-index of 39 is a super-pass of WP:Prof#C1. Nominator may like to withdraw. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy keep. Per David Eppstein and Xxanthippe. Astro4686 (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this all seems clear enough proof of importance. Blythwood (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2016 (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.