Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Aaker

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Aaker

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

Solely promotional page written like an extended resume, would require a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. Citobun (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We may be able to cut down on some promotional tone, but this has a lot of sourced prose, so it isn't too much like a resume and wouldn't require a rewrite. Some bulleted sections are allowed, particularly in standard WP biography sections like Publications or Bibliography (which might just be better renamed Further reading). The subject is definitely notable per WP:GNG and WP:PROF (at least because of holding a named chair at a major university, possibly other criteria). EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Very clear passes of WP:PROF#C5 (named chair at Stanford) and #C1 (citation counts 4936, 945, 903, etc). Article does not look irredeemably promotional to me; it mostly recounts her accomplishments, exactly as such an article is supposed to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I de-PRODded this, I alreay indicated a clear pass of WP:ACADEMIC, so I am a bit surprised to find this at AfD. If something is irredeemably promotional, it should be speedily deleted (CSD#G11). Obviously, this is not a G11, so the article needs cleanup, not an AfD. I have already pared down the fluff a bit. The best thing would probably be to stubify the thing and then re-expand from there. --Randykitty (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep i'm not surprised. there is a clear drift of delete at all costs, no matter of how nonsensical. they have no shame; they will not collaborate. "needs a rewrite, so delete," lol Duckduckstop (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? I have contributed much more content to Wikipedia than I have proposed for deletion, so if you have some chip on your shoulder don't come passive aggressively insulting me about it. Thanks to everyone else who has contributed by stripping the article of promotional content. Citobun (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see you at wikimania; there i will tell you who i am. Duckduckstop (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2015 (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.