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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Curzon-Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

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

fails WP:BIO. lacks significant indepth coverage [1]. simply being a president of a notable org doesn't qualify you for an article. German and French articles are poorly referenced too. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I think WP:prof notability is evident via her academic work, her Professorship at Geneva [2] and being president of Mont Pelerin Society and WP:POLITICIAN via elected position ( for Liberal Party) to Grand Conseil Etat de Genève. The following also help, member of the Academic Advisory Council of the Institute of Economic Affairs, London, the Centre for the New Europe, Brussels, Institut Constant de Rebecque, Lausanne, the L’Institut de Recherches Économiques et Fiscales (I.R.E.F.), Luxembourg. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment. Would like to say "keep" on this one, as the backstory makes the subject appear notable, but that can only be confirmed if there are references. The only thing there now is some other wiki-bio. Gnews doesn't show much, but I'd imagine there would be something out there. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom and failing relevant notability guidelines. Turqoise127 04:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Change opinion to weak keep per added sources, and Msrasnw's response to some of my concerns. This is a borderline marginal case, but I simply can not go against my nature in wanting to keep those within the project. The subject meets WP:PROF #6.Turqoise127 01:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Holding the positions she does is notable. The position at Grand Conseil Etat de Genève alone would be sufficient, and is now unimpeachably proven by the reference in the article to their official page at [3]. (It was not present when the article was nominated, nit the nom should have looked himself BEFORE placing the AfD, which would then have been unnecessary). The academic part should be expanded, but it isn't essential to do before keeping the article, as there's verified unquestionable notability by WP:POLITICIAN. The deWP article isn't referenced, as is their style when the notability is obvious, but the frWP one is DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 30 November 2010 (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.