Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicky Barnecutt

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Barnecutt[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)

Not yet notable by Wikipedia:Notability (academics), WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Works for and with some notable institutions, but I can't find her on Scopus, and citations are low on Google Scholar. No coverage of her work online in reliable mainstream press sources either. Storchy (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Social science, and England. Storchy (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too much like a CV, nothing suggests WP:NBIO or WP:PROF is met. No GScholar profile, and GScholar results are not many anyway, which suggests they are either not doing much research or their research is, well, not impactful to say the least.
_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm going to say WP:TOOSOON on this one. In the G-Books search she appears in a number of acknowledgments and lists of anthropologists who worked on various projects. Most of her publications are work she did for the British Museum. No publications are heavily cited, and it appears to me that she would need publications in standard journals in her field to achieve notability. At the same time, her area of expertise (South Pacific culture) is pretty niche, so citation counts will probably never be very high. Lamona (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Not yet notable – Wikipedia:Too soon. Article should be drafted, not deleted. Annoyed-Briefs-in-Jenkins (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sure how someone who's been active for over 15 years is going to qualify as WP:TOOSOON. Fails GNG and NSCHOLAR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find evidence of WP:PROF, WP:GNG, or WP:AUTHOR notability. Our article writes as if the book New Ireland: Art of the South Pacific was entirely authored by her, but she is only listed as a contributor, not the main editor (Michael Gunn), I didn't find any published reviews of it or anything else she might have written, and I would need multiple published reviews of multiple authored books to be convinced of a case for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Could be considered WP:TOOSOON. Could not find nearly enough to meet WP:GNG. HennSw123 (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2022 (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.