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. Article satisfies GNG following expansion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia Nimue Ackerman (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)

Delete: as non-notable academic. Quis separabit? 01:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not proven to fulfill specific criteria of notability. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 06:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after expansion by Grand'mere Eugene. WP:GNG seems proven. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 01:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete when an article even bothers to mention the subject is a "frequent letter writer" to a newspaper, as opposed to at a minimum saying they have had op-ed pieces published by that paper, it is a sure sign the person is just plain not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more inane even than your usual arguments for notability. She's not notable because she's notable for something, but it's something you don't think should be interesting so it doesn't count? I recently added to the article the information that she's a frequent letter writer because several reliable sources cover that aspect of her work. It is no more an argument against notability than any other source of minor fame. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've expanded the article some, and based on her publications, The New Yorker profile, and the comments of the NYT letters editor, I believe she meets WP:GNG. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well published, cited and referenced full Professor at an ivy league university, accomplished also as a poet and author of fiction and letters to the press. I looked well beyond the citations in the article to establish WP:GNG at the very least. Thank you, Grand'mere Eugene, for improving the article! gidonb (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The expanded revision meets GNG. XOR'easter (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, following Grand-Mère's sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2018 (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.