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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allyson Stewart-Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Poorly sourced (close sources only) article about non-notable academic, fails WP:PROF / WP:GNG. (I first tried PROD'ding this, but was notified that the article has been already deleted once in 2014. Apologies for any confusion!) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject certainly doesn't pass WP:PROF, with a few handfuls of citations to her work reported by Google Scholar and no indication that she passes that guideline on any other count. I can find no reviews of her work, which would go towards WP:AUTHOR, and nothing in independent reliable sources other than articles by her or quotations from her, so no evidence that WP:GNG is passed. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This doesn't have the problem of promotional weak-source puffery of the version deleted in 2014, but there's still no evidence of notability of any sort. Certainly her citation record is too weak for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete few GS citations to her work indicates a fail of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete She's won awards, but I have no indication of what they are, why they are important or what she's done to earn them. And I don't see what she does to earn a living, I can't establish notability on these few lines alone. Oaktree b (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 12:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not pass PROF or SIGCOV.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not seem to have the level of notability that would justify an article. Dunarc (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2020 (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.