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 Snow Keep. - Article's been left open a week so kinda pointless Speedy Keeping it so just Snowing it instead. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tani E. Barlow[edit]

Tani E. Barlow (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)

There is very little information about this person. Sources seem self published, except a list of articles attributed to her (trouble with WP:BLPSOURCES). Thus subject of the article fails WP:NACADEMICS since she has not won any national awards or particularly had a specific impact on her field. Cocoaguy ここがいい 04:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After looking over the first AfD, I have to say that I find that this person in question has not made a significant impact to any field, and that simply having a lot of hits on any search engine does not give one notability especially academically. Cocoaguy ここがいい 04:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per WP:PROF#C1 (highly cited publications on women in China; Google scholar gives citation counts 183, 149, 149, 114, etc., very high for humanities) and #C5 (named chair at a well-known research university). She also has a case for #8 as editor of Positions but it's less clear because the journal might not be well-enough established yet. Any one of these criteria would be enough by itself. The previous AfD was indecisive, and the nomination statement cites WP:PROF, but the nominator appears not to have read it carefully because the pass of #C5 especially is unambiguous. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per David. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Might have been borderline before when she was apparently still at her previous job, but it's crystal clear keep now that she's moved to Rice with a named professorship.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep -- doing a snow pile-on to emphasize how clear-cut this case is by WP:PROF guidelines. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would, btw., assert that the C8 a pass also -- the journal has received three substantial awards and a major press. This seems enough. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:SNOWBALL. Shows the problem with failure to run a proper WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:58, 5 January 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.