Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Hicks (2nd nomination)

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. Cirt (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Hicks[edit]

Fails WP:PROFESSOR. Article fails to show notability and other sources could be find. Note to closer, if this results in delete move Barbara Hicks (actress) to this name. BJ^Talk 01:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROF. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An unexplained neutral? What does this vote contribute to the discussion? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your right, I apologize. I'm actually going to give a recommendation shortly... I'm still looking at some of her works. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If a respected commenter on the subject feels the need to state that they have no strong opinion, then that's a statement on its own. (I don't know if NonvocalScream is a respected commenter on this subject, since I don't much follow professor deletions.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have looked and seen her works. I still have no specific recommendation. I believe there is potential, but in the current form, there are notability issues. Firmly Neutral. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for the clarification. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Her papers have only been cited about 60 times as far as I can tell from GScholar. This suggests non-notability, but I'm open to persuasion otherwise - Vartanza (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No indication of notability to meet guidelines. Profs are expected to write papers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Associate Professor at minor institution. GS shows 1 book with 21 cites, some papers. It looks like Vartanza is correct. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTE in general and WP:PROF in particular due to lack of sources or citations or influence, etc. Drawn Some (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete not enough publications or citations , and not a major research university. DGG (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not make a convincing case for passing WP:PROF. I tried searching for reviews for her book Environmental Politics in Poland: A Social Movement Between Regime and Opposition but didn't find them. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Meets or is close to meeting WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). The subject’s book, Environmental politics in Poland, is currently in close to 250 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. While this may not seem like a large number, the topic of the book is quite narrow, which makes these holdings more notable than they appear to be a first glance. Additionally, the book was published by Columbia University Press, a rather selective publisher of scholarly books.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2009 (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.