Deletion of Linda DeLibero

Comment: mostly per #C7 -- subject is treated as an expert about films and film studies in many significant film fora. In addition she holds the top academic position in a significant program at a top institution -- that in itself is not enough to satisfy , but with the C7 support, I believe it does pass the Average Professor Test with room to spare
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: I think there are, in fact, significant notability issues here. Her http://www.unz.org/Author/DeLiberoLinda publications seem mostly to be short reviews in a single, small-circulation periodical called ''In These Times'', which probably explains http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Linda+DeLibero%22 lack of GS citations. (There's nothing in WoS.) I found the "English Filming, English Writing", mentioned above, but WorldCat shows this to be held by just http://www.worldcat.org/title/ltigtenglish-filming-english-writingltigt-review/oclc/703475684&referer=brief_results 1 institution. The standard academic databases don't show anything else written by her. None of the other sources that mention/discuss her seem to be mainstream publications, e.g. http://hub.jhu.edu/gazette/2013/february/parkway-theatre this one is from the campus newspaper of her institution. The article's sources are all either webpages, or text written by the subject. There are some short quotes by her in a few news sources, like The Baltimore Sun, but nothing that could satisfy . The "top academic position" argument above goes to  #6, but this is also spurious. It is actually quite difficult to discern her position at Johns Hopkins University|JHU, since she seems only to have a non-faculty title of "associate director" (i.e. not listed as Professor), but she is certainly not Provost/President/Chancellor, etc. that  #6 considers "top academic position". I think
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:PROF||WP:PROF)

Comment: It looks clear from the discussion above that she is not a great fit for the academic standards of , and that we should consider her notability as a film critic and public figure instead, per  or . But I am just not seeing the depth of coverage (in Google news archive and Highbeam search results) that would justify a pass on those grounds
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG||WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: I don't see evidence of meeting #C7.  USER:reddogsix|reddogsix
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: She has the creds, she has the expertise. She has written and lectured on film and culture for decades and food as well, though not as long as the other two subjects. I'm really confused by how heated this debate has become (both against AND for). The subject is clearly not just a local fluff celebrity, her writings and activities span DC to NYC. The lack of hits on searchable online resources has been brought up, but that seems to stem from a bias against publications and media outlets that aren't completely digital/cloud/interweb type outlets. She obviously (to me) meets  C7, but even if that is in question she should be able to pass with PLENTY of room to spare  criteria. She seems legit. I really don't understand the why or how this AfD thread got so heated - once again, on both sides. (Also, while I've contributed to Wiki articles for a while now, this is my first AfD post. Please don't bite
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:CREATIVE)