Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn R. (Lynn) McDonald

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn R. (Lynn) McDonald[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this can be improved as my searches found no good results with this and this being the best results. It also seems there's no good move target aside from her son's article Ben Wikler. It seems several of the editors aren't very active aside from DGG (which removed the speedy and I know this subject interests him) and also notifying author Paulbaker55. Summarily, there's simply nothing to suggest improvement and nothing to suggest FAST is notable enough for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not significant enough Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find significant independent coverage of her contributions to education. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a lot of information about significant contributions. FAST is extremely important and cited quite a lot in both educational and social-work journals and books...and I've only just gotten started. It's late for me here, so I'll see what I can turn up tomorrow, but I think I've shown a good start on my edits to the page. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why was this even nominated? Clearly she meets GNG. She invented a program that "is implemented in over 2000 schools in 14 countries, including in 49 states in the US". What earthly difference does it make if the editors aren't active? No one owns the article, and notability by definition is neither derived from anyone else nor fleeting. If you don't understand what notability is, please stop nominating articles for deletion. If you are too lazy to improve them, at least just tag them for improvement. SusunW (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 17:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The article now documents contributions that appear to pass WP:PROF#C7. Striking my earlier comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — WP:PROF#C7 is now satisfied by new sources; thanks to Megalibrarygirl for doing the legwork. Toffanin (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clear indicia of GNG, third-party sources and article improvement. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:35, 10 September 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.