Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Logasa

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SantiLak (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Logasa

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. SantiLak (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I may not have the time to expand the page and sourcing until Monday (but I'll do it then, if no one else does first), but Logasa was a famous librarian, bibliographer, teacher, curriculum developer, and civic leader and there are plenty of sources discussing her and her work in google books, google scholar, google, newspapers.com, etc. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The Wikipedia Guide to Deletion directs nominators, "First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." (Italics mine.) Apparently this nom did not do such a search. In addition, WP:GNG states, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. While the article as it existed at the time of AfD nomination had only a single source, a cursory search reveals many reliable sources, including reviews of her many publications on libraries in schools. This reference dicusses in depth her work defining the role of school librarians in progressive education.— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to pass WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Having works in print 40+ years after death, as well as a significant body of publications points to notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2017 (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.