Deletion of Stanlie James

Comment: does meet , but still currently reads too much like a cover letter, or resume instead from a neutral point of view. Should be overhauled to read in a more encyclopedic fashion and tone of voice
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: Also, as  tells us, being female and black probably means that Stanlie James's article is in practice liable to get far less work done on it than if she were male and white, and consequently makes it far more likely to be nominated for deletion, thus forcing female and black editors to drop what they are currently working on to rush to try to fix the problem, an exhausting process that presumably leads to such already under-represented editors being more likely to quit, thus further aggravating Wikipedia's Systemic Bias problem. Needless to add this is liable to then be made even worse if their efforts then prove to be wasted because the article gets deleted anyway
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:BIAS)

Comment: It seems to me that, even as the article is now (as opposed to when this was nominated for deletion in good faith), it satisfies . The references to her work in King, Deborah K. (2010) and Barnes, Marian (2005) are both in books published by reputable academic publishers, and can be checked online. The same seems to be true of the Pedwell, Carolyn (2010) citation  as it's published by a reputable academic publisher, (though it may not be checkable online). And this is quite likely only the tip of the iceberg since googling "Stanlie James" (in quotes) gives 10,400 general results and 4,100 book results. This also makes accusations of possible self-promotion () seem pretty implausible - with that many books available she could presumably manage far more than just the 3 independent citations she has now (and the none she had at the time of nomination) if she were promoting herself. And the article was originally created, and has now been greatly improved, by one of our most experienced editors
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:NPF||WP:SPIP)

Comment: Now passes  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:PROF)

Comment: from the nominator.  I appreciate that the article has been improved since I nominated it.  But it remains a straightforward listing of CV-type data, solely drawing on the works of the subject herself.  The subject fails all four criteria of :  no evidence of being "widely cited by peers," no evidence of "originating a significant new concept," no "well-known work or collective body of work," and has "not won significant critical attention."  Just listing the subject's books and saying they sit on library shelves doesn't do it.  I don't think I have to remind people that we need people ''other than the subject herself'' commenting on these things -- none of that is in the article.  I greatly respect the article's creator
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)