Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen M. Duncan

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 SNOWBALL KEEP. Kaldari (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helen M. Duncan

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

Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article. I understand that under WP:PROF there should be proof of significant academic achievements by Ms. Duncan. She is significant because she worked on a fluorspar project in the U.S. during WWII, a time when the U.S. was the leading producer of fluorspar. Mineral of the Month Undead q talk Undead q 13:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above comment that it is premature to delete this article. It is still a stub in need of some expansion, but that requires locating the appropriate source materials, most of which are in paper format only. Have you tried verifying academic achievements of a woman paleontologist from the 1940s? Let me tell you, there is a lot of legwork! Challenges aside, I would say that the biggest indicator of notability is the fact that the Smithsonian Institution Archives chose to accession Duncan's personal papers for inclusion in their collections. If the manuscript curators of that Institution believe Duncan to be notable enough to preserve her papers in perpetuity, shouldn't Wikipedia editors entertain the possibility for at least a little longer than 3 days? -Sarasays (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sarasays and it appears to pass WP:PROF based on "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Sarah (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sarasays. This person is a prominent war worker, not simply an academic. I'd also like to suggest that scientific contributions to the WWII war effort be considered as fulfilling WP:PROF, which says the "scholarly discipline" should be "broadly construed" rather than restricted to standard academic literature. Additionally, I see her master's thesis called "a classic in its field." Djembayz (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Academics seem to have a hard time on Wikipedia. These people tell you the number of their publications in meters high !!! And in sport and entertaiment BLP stubs remain unchallenged. That's not good --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria. Helen Duncan is covered in reasonable depth by reliable, independent sources (the first two in the list of references). There is no need to invoke the specialized criteria in WP:PROF. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sarasays and RockMagnetist. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of her contributions to geology. WP:PROF does not so much apply, since she was a working scientist and not a academic. --Bejnar (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Sarasays and SarahStierch.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this clearly passes the WP:PROF test, both because of the strategic importance of fluorspar at the time of her work, and because women pioneers in this field were rare, hence noteworthy. ServiceAT (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously a sufficiently notable person. - Ipigott (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Should not be deleted. Maile66 (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per just about all of the above, snow close. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes the General notability guideline due to large number of references and so does not need to pass WP:Prof as well. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Duncan's papers are held by the Smithsonian Institution Archives, which gets this subject 100% over the bar in five seconds in my opinion. LINK. Carrite (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep: HOly moly. Nominator gets a black mark for this one!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:01, 4 April 2012 (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.