Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadieh Bremer

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The result was Keep — nomination withdrawn, and no !votes to delete. (non-admin closure) XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nadieh Bremer (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)

LinkedIn style profile with no claim of notability lacking reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article is in bad shape and is overtly promotional. That said, there is enough RS coverage of her work in data visualization. Aside from many mentions where she has illustrated or co-authored articles in good pubs, I fount SIGCOV in the Washington Post, Bloomberg News, The Week, Scientific American, Digital Arts online and an Italian source. These sources are all cases where an independent author in a good publication has decided to introduce her visualization work as one of the subjects of the article, rather than it just being there to illustrate something. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The article was written by what I think is a good-faith participant in an education project [1] I suspect that the reason that it so promotional is that people read so much promotional language these days that they think that writing like that is "normal". I suppose it is. It's just not "encyclopedic". Anyway, the sources are there, so it's a Keep. Vexations (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've added the publications listed above to the article, and I think it now passes GNG and CREATIVE. Netherzone (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination. Thank you everyone. I agree notability is now clear. Mccapra (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2020 (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.