Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kara Cooney

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) Kharkiv07 (T) 15:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Kara Cooney

Kara Cooney (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)

Seemingly NN academic. Despite some publications and contribution to a documentary, fails all 9 elements of WP:NACADEMICS. The Dissident Aggressor 18:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  19:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  19:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm not sure whether she passes WP:PROF (the strongest case is probably for C7, impact outside of academia) but I think we have enough press about her and her TV work to pass WP:GNG and enough mainstream reviews of her books to pass WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep if this is notable and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep: she gets sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to pass WP:BASIC. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

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.