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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Cookson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

References don't verify anything in the article, and no evidence of coverage from independent sources has been provided. Peter E. James (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• delete— per Xxanthippe, and fact that even under other name of ann wilkins, h-index still seems to be about 1, not enough for WP:PROF. in no way enough material for gng. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• hold If a photo is taken and uploaded of her plaque in the Lancaster University central room will this candidate be accepted? (Preston North End Dan (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
• Weak keep - Internet sources aren't widely available, but other reliable sources are available, particularly in academia. Refer to references section in the article for some examples. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Delete Not a single one of the "sources" you provide support any of the material in the article, let alone establish notability. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment— agreed. the first one mentions her name in the acknowledgements, but says nothing about her. i can't see where she's even mentioned in the second, but possibly because it's paywalled. she's not an author, though, and i'm guessing it's also an acknowledgements situation. the third one has her listed for a couple years as a donor to the geological society. these sources are really random, not about her, don't support the info in the article. truly not notable. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Reiteration: Internet sources aren't widely available, however other reliable sources are available, particularly in academia. Perhaps a more thorough library search and searches in scientific journals would be appropriate to establish notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Northamerica1000, it is those wishing to keep the article that need to establish notability. Reasoning that there must be something out there, somewhere, is hardly enough to credibly claim notability by Wikipedia standards. You seem certain that such references are indeed available - would you care to share exactly which journals specifically? Could you also explain which criteria the subject meets with regard to WP:ACADEMIC? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, sorry for some duplication)comment— could you list a few, Northamerica? i checked jstor as well as gscholar. it's well-known to be impossible to prove a negative, but i think no one here is arguing that she meets the gng, so that leaves wp:prof. if she's at all notable, she'd be showing up either in gscholar or in jstor. i'm completely willing to change my mind, but unless you can actually cite some sources, even sources "in academia", i see no way for you to sway anyone, because no one will be able to check. the ones in the article are useless. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I do not see the coverage needed to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:GNG. Vanity article. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:15, 28 September 2011 (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.