Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirleene Robinson

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 delete. Will userfy as User:Chris troutman/Shirleene Robinson per editor's request. Deor (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shirleene Robinson[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy There's coverage of her same-sex civil union and she's mentioned in some third-party academic publications but she doesn't appear to meet criteria. This article, written by an SPA, is an eyesore as is and I'd like the closing admin to add it to my userspace for rehab. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She comes no where near meeting notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the material I could find when searching for her were books she was involved in writing or journal articles she had written. Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. AlanS (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added four references (independent reviews of her books) from HighBeam Research, which indicate that she meets WP:PROF #1 and #7.I am One of Many (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not have citation impact to meet the WP:PROF that way. Reviews are nice but few and in some cases limited to highly specialized and local outlets. Holdings are minimal. I could not find enough to meet WP:GNG either.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- one book (probably her thesis recycled) and editing a collection is not enough for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2014 (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.