Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanne Faulkner

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Faulkner[edit]

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

I do not believe this person meets WP:PROF. limited peer recognition. wrote a non notable book. being chair of the dubioius Australasian Society for Continental Philosophy which is currently under consideration for deletion. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep likely as this seems well sourced and I found other links at News, Books, browser and Scholar. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her works have been reviewed by other scholars as is shown in References. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no, only 2-3 sources refer to review by other scholars, but even that doesn't satisfy WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't it satisfy WP:PROF? --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this person doesn't meet any criteria of WP:NACADEMICS. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her work has been peer-reviewed or mentioned by "independent reliable sources", then she is notable. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - notable enough. Gender studies does not get the kind of attention the hard sciences get. She's been working at a prominent university in Australia. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

just because she works at a prominent university doesn't add to her notability unless she was a Dean of a faculty. She is a lowest level full time academic at lecturer status. LibStar (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2015 (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.