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 Nathanson, but no consensus about Young.  Sandstein  19:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Nathanson (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)

I am also nominating the following related pages because [of the same reason]:

Katherine K. Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Not notable enough. I initially did this as a prod but the template was removed and a list of additional refs added to the talk page but I still think it's too thin. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete neither appear to meet notability either via WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Young may have a stringer case if the information about the court case Hollingsworth v. Perry could have been sourced and verifiable though even that WP article doesnt place any significance on her involvement(current vs WP:BEANS) especially not to the level as noted in the Young article. Nathanson is notability based on what limited info is available is dependent on Young being notable. Gnangarra 01:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fail WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Here are some links as to notability:

• A book review in the telegraph
• BBC coverage
• Coverage from Inside Higher Ed
• mention regarding one of her books on Hinduism
• An article about her in the Vancouver Sun
• A reference to her in a Toronto Star Editorial
• A Toronto Globe and Mail editorial about her writings
• A Vice article on men's rights activism
• An article from the Globe and Mail on her comments about the presentation of men in advertising

The articles are stubs, but the authors are notable based on several reliable sources.Mattnad (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The "sources" above not only don't rise above namechecks, some of them don't even appear to mention the subjects. Given the amount of noise MRAs make, the lack of substantive coverage of these two is striking evidence that they and their work are not considered especially important. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Young, weak delete Nathanson. The Telegraph and Vancouver Sun articles linked above are in-depth sources about Young and her works (the others, I agree, are not sufficiently in-depth to count for anything, and the Sun story does not help provide notability for Nathanson). In addition I found (and added to the article) five published reviews of her monograph on Hinduism. That goes a long way towards WP:AUTHOR, I think, even though the monograph had two other coauthors. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Young she meets the WP:PROF standards by her books; Principal editor of Her voice, her faith : women speak on world religions which worldcat shows in over 1100 libraries. The volumes of the Misandry.. series , from a significant academic publisher, are each of them also in over 1000 libraries. The academic book reviews show her other books significant also,so she meets both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. The references David E indicates are sufficient for her to also meet WP:GNG. As for Nathanson, based on theavailable information, he's a junior author. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything after 2002 that wasn't printed by McGill-Queen's University Press, her own university?

Does 1,000 libraries globally constitute a lot? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Wikipedia's designated expert on how many libraries are required for notability? Seems to me your concern is less about notability than scrubbing Wikipedia of people another editor called MRAs. I suspect that's really what's going on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.48.94.208 (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Wikipedia's designated expert on how many libraries are required for notability? Nope, that's why I asked the question. Young's blp already had notability template added to it in June 2014 and not by me – diff. If you know of any MRAs who don't already have blps on Wikipedia then feel free to create them, just make sure they are notable. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:50, 16 November 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.