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 Result = WP:SNOW keep. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth F. Fisher (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)

Single source, fails to meet WP:PROF. Tal Brenev (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Subject easily meets WP:GNG through a series of accomplishments that were rare for women in her day. She taught at MIT and was the first woman sent out by an oil company to do surveying. She also has a fellowship named for her at Wellesley College. More sources have been added to the article, including her New York Times obituary. I think a quick search would have revealed her notability and suggest that the nominator review WP:BEFORE. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 04:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability is clear as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. WP:PROF isn't a very good fit for academics of that time, but nevertheless she does pass #3 with the AAAS and AGS fellows. The objection of having a single source is no longer valid. And the NYT obit seals the deal. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously notable. Dlohcierekim 07:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clear pass of WP:PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Maile (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lack of sources isn't a good AfD argument (WP:MUST), this does pass WP:PROF and WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am closing this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2014 (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.