Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Moestrup

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 no consensus. The two last "delete" opinions are very cursory and don't address the sources, so aren't very helpful to establish consensus. Sandstein 18:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Moestrup

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

Doesn't seem to pass our notability guidelines for academics, in addition to failing our general notability criteria. Thus, based on a lack of notability, and thus verifiability, the article should be deleted. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 18:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – institutional affiliation is with a think tank, so needs some 3rd-party coverage to make the bar. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – she has enough scholarly published work, notably with Robert Elgie, another scholar, as in their most recently published book Semi-Presidentialism in the Caucasus and Central Asia. --B.Lameira (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC) Note that B.Lameira is article creator.[reply]

@B.Lameira:, Whatever your motivation is for adding articles on minor intellectuals to Wikipedia, and there are many excellent reasons to do so, I urge you to learn how to write a decent article. This article needs sourcing, WP:SIGCOV. If she is a notable intellectual, it will be simple to find discussions of the nature and impact of her work in reviews of her books and in journal articles that discuss her work in some depth. When you have done that, feel free to ping me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- in addition to academic qualifications, she has also edited a notable book:

Semi-Presidentialism Outside Europe: A Comparative Study, eds. Robert Elgie and Sophia Moestrup. New York: Routledge, 2007.

The book has been reviewd in Political Studies Review, May 01, 2013; Vol. 11, No. 2, p. 263-264 & Demokratizatsiya, Apr 01, 2010; Vol. 18, No. 2, p. 182-184. The editors of such collections of essays are generally acknowledged experts in their field. It's a "keep" for me, on the balance of things. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I usually agree with K.e.coffman on these, here I hesitate. This is a new article on an intellectual and the sole book to her credit is an edited volume. Feel free to flag me to revisit if someone finds more persuasive sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. She seems prolific as a co-editor of books (four at least on semi-presidential) but they're not very notable (I didn't turn up more reviews than the ones already listed by K.e.c above) and for book editing rather than authorship I think we'd need a lot more than that. Other than the books, there seems not much of note in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 12:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it as there is not enough coverage so she can pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 07:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article as is, doesnt potray its subject as being notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article on the encylopedia.Celestina007 (talk) 03:29, 01 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.