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) Esquivalience ^t 00:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pippa Norris[edit]

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

Likely the person is notable per WP:NPROF, however this article is so promotional and spammy. It's an autobiography that's now being maintained by the user. Needs a complete rewrite, and I believe the only solution is to stubify, per WP:TNT. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she meets GNG, but I don't think the article is as bad as TNT. Just needs someone to take an axe to it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been trying to add references to external published materials to the existing text, as requested by an editor earlier. I am not sure why it is said to be 'spammy' or 'promotional' when all the contents can be verified from materials in the public sphere, such as books published, prizes awarded, positions held, and so on and so forth. In this regards, its the same model as most Harvard faculty bios in Wikipedia, and I have been seeking to comply with Wiki policies. I can easily add more references to other secondary sources, if useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PippaN (talk • contribs) 22:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PippaN, I don't agree with the nominator's assessment of it being overly spammy, but I think it's a little... enthusiastic :-) Adding more sources never hurts. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. OK, really user:PippaN shouldn't be writing WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY of herself here - she can do it on linkedin instead if she wants people to know about her work. But actually, I think the article is fairly factual and it's not too bad in terms of neutrality/promotion. Le petit fromage (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:PROF guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Let's use AFD to weed out inappropriate articles, not to slam faculty who have accurate - if highly flattering - pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- E.M.Gregory excellent point! —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Appropriately meets WP:PROF with an additional 34,318 Google Scholar citations! Any major point of view issues have been suitably removed and further tweaks can be made in the future to address more minor issues. Though I would like to request that PippaN read through the autobiography guidelines. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:BIO/WP:NPROF. Not problematic enough to WP:TNT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:22, 30 May 2015 (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.