Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marian Green

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. Sandstein 06:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Green

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

Subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Sources do not establish notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completed incomplete nom. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found an article here. It seems she has done a lot of work in her field, but did anyone notice? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 20:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A relist only 2 days after its first listing? Anyway, I had added a couple of book references, obtained via Questia. Her appearance in books in her field could indicate a Keep, but I'm just not sure how far they exceed passing mention. AllyD (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mentioned in several survey works on modern paganism and witchcraft, cited as an authority, specifically characterised in an article in a scholarly survey as having written much used books, founded influential publication and organisations. Passes GNG. I've added further material found online and will see if I can find more offline. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC) - Now that I've examined sources offline, make that prominently mentioned in 4 works on modern paganism published by a range of academic presses, the most extensive coverage being in the Luhrmann book, which was already cited but only for a small point. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:55, 16 July 2013 (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.