Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debra Roberts

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 speedy keep. Clearly notable science biography, about an IPCC chair -- and clearly passes the various notability guidelines described by folks. Sadads (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Roberts[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non notable, fails WP:NACADEMIC and not notable for her govermental work Gbawden (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being an IPCC co-chair is a rare honor for an academic, equivalent to criteria 3 and 7. Zero^talk 10:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:SIGCOV. Most available online information is social media-related or redundant listings of her CV. Dr42 (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her Google Scholar citation record (10 papers with over 100 citations each, some singly-authored) gives her an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1 on top of any notability for heading IPCC. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I've added four more sources about her to a new "Further reading" section (because they're not yet used to source anything in the article itself). I think she also passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I'm otherwise generally inclined towards WP:NPROF C1 being met, we recently decided that Craig Loehle, who works in a similar field and has about double her citation count including on top-cited papers, was not notable. Note that he's a climate change denier, which is certainly a fringe viewpoint. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think David Eppstein has made a good case for WP:PROF/WP:GNG. This isn't one of those instances where there might be an arguable pass of WP:PROF#C1 on citation counts alone but a lack of sources to actually write an article with. XOR'easter (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pass WP:Prof#C1 on GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I believe the subject passes WP:Prof#C1 In addition as David Eppstein has stated, the subject passes GNG as well. Lightburst (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm convinced by the WP:NPROF C1, and the GNG aspects help support. (I raise Loehle for consistency's sake, but certainly don't think we should use him to set precedent.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2019 (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.