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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Cannon-Alfred[edit]

Carolyn Cannon-Alfred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to identify any publications besides the coauthorship of her book for patients. The item in Ebony appears to be an advertisement for the book. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The citations provided are two extremely brief directory listings and an advertisement through which one can order the book. I find no other reliable sources that are useful for creating a biographical article about the subject. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notabity. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

*Delete for reasons given above. Effectively unsourced, even thought it is small micro article. scope_creep^Talk 13:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have added a second item in Ebony that is a story about a Los Angeles City Council resolution and ceremony honoring her and her husband in 1971. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming you linked to the correct source, that's the same advertorial as the one that was already provided. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's my error. I deleted the duplicate. I also added in her PhD information and a 1961 Science journal article by her on the same topic. DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG - She is a subject of Black women scientists in the United States (Indiana University Press, 1999), Contributions of African American scientists to the fields of science, medicine, and inventions (Nova Science Publishers, 2010), Blacks in science and medicine (Hemisphere Pub. Corp, 1990), and this non-bylined obituary.Beccaynr (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC) And via the WP Library: Chamber's investment in South Central Medical Center 20 years ago pays off (Southern California Business, 1994, discussing the book and the medical center. Beccaynr (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The entry in Blacks in science and medicine lists the subject's place and date of birth, education and career progression very summarily without commenting on her notability, and cites one co-authored publication. Is that substantial enough coverage? I've seen similarly minor coverage dismissed in other AfDs. Ficaia (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, so from my view, in combination with other independent and reliable sources, yes, her inclusion in Blacks in science and medicine provides some support for notability due to its synthesis of her biographical and career information. Beccaynr (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. XOR'easter (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG with book sources provided by Beccaynr. Article needs an update as it reads as if she is alive. NemesisAT (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Two valid book entries means there much more there. scope_creep^Talk 04:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Based on the RS provided by Beccaynr - nice work!!!!! Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Black Women Scientists in the United States lists American Men and Women of Science as a reference. If someone can verify that she is in the latter, then that would both help support the notability case as well as potentially source biographical details. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2022 (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.