Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaylene Gebert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. Cbrown1023 talk 23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kaylene Gebert

Kaylene Gebert (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable. A number of better-known individuals have no bio entry. Freddyboy (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, accomplished but not notable. Only independent coverage is for routine job changes. (Though note that the second sentence of the nomination is a what about x? argument, not considered a strong one for AFD.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. She has been on a lot of short lists for University President jobs (some of these documented in the article). Since women are underrepresented in the ranks of University Presidents, I think that makes her notable--she belongs to a pretty small subset of academic administrators.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is a waste of space. If she were world renown that that is one thing. However, she is not. Also, there are a number of female university presidents some of whom have no article here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.72.247 (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has several references. I recognize that an administrator doesn't have as much time to do research as a regular academic, but I still expected to find more publications for her, though. Her position is probably a notable one. --Eastmain (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As it stands, it doesn't appear that she is a leading academician. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see that she has done anything especially notable.GWTI29 (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • User's only contribution to Wikipedia. PeterSymonds | talk 18:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not worthy of an article. talk) 01:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The coverage in reliable sources would normally be enough to demonstrate notability. --Eastmain (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Being a university president would, in my opinion, automatically indicate notability. Being a provost is somewhat borderline. However, since she has been a provost at two universities, one of fairly large size (Middle Tennessee State University, 23,000 students), I think that qualifies. Nsk92 (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. While Dr. Gebert certainly seems accomplished, I do not see that she rates a bio on Wikipedia. Her bio is prominently displayed at her current institution. Also, the journal articles cited seem a particularly weak argument. First, they are somewhat dated. Second, there are many professors with more journal publications that do not have bios on Wikipedia.TID9786 (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    • User's only contribution to Wikipedia. PeterSymonds | talk 18:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


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.