Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Kronk Warner

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) –Davey2010^Talk 23:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Kronk Warner[edit]

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

Her page never states she's an actual full professor and her CV actually states "Adjunct and Associate Professor" and Associate Dean simply means she's a staff associates, not an important position. Nothing here at all for WP:PROF given the fact she's not in an otherwise convincing position to satisfy, and also not notable as a local judge, there's also no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else. Sinppy because she's known in her specific field by her school staff is not automatically notability here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google scholar lists her publications under E. Kronk, not Warner. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~delete~~ keep. GS [h-index]] of somewhere around 7 does not pass WP:Prof#C1. Can notability be found in WP:GNG? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment " The Washington Post source lists her as: "Elizabeth A. Kronk Warner, director of the Tribal Law & Government Center at the University of Kansas School of Law". If so, and based off that source, I'm leaning towards a Keep. JuliaCameron (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The case for WP:PROF#C1 is weak, as Xxanthippe notes, but she is clearly a recognized expert on native American law (e.g. quoted in Washington Post), and has a plausible case for #C7 for her judicial work and #C8 for being editor-in-chief of the magazine of the Federal Bar Association (as well as serving on the bar's board of directors). Also, her edited volume has been well reviewed; that wouldn't be enough by itself but I think it adds to the overall case. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I deprodded this because she's not only a full Professor, with lots of scholarship on her record, but she's also the associate dean/director of a well-regarded law school. I also agree with fellow legal eagle David Eppstein. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian As you may know, Professor is not the same thing as an actual Full Professor and her profiles still no cited "Full Professor", thus not so. What the CV states is "Professor, July 2015-". SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister are you still trying to argue this ridiculous point? Her CV, prominently linked from her home page (which is the first source in the article), says she's been a full professor since 2015. And, since you changed your comment after I made mine in an attempt to make yourself look less ridiculous: in that specific context, it can only mean full professor. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is an overall case that she is a notable legal scholar, even if she might not clearly pass one or another WP:PROF criteria. – Joe (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is more as an ethnic legal activist spokesperson than as a scholar; but it's there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that as a scholar-activist she is notable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Washington Post source mentioned above, and numerous sources in the article that prove she meets WP:GNG. Brad v 19:59, 10 January 2017 (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.