Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daisy Rooks

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Rooks[edit]

non-notable junior sociologist, has just begun assistant prof position; two peer-reviewed articles, with very few citations, minimal news coverage. Declined prod; article creator is supporting it with references such as a link to the acknowledgements section of a book by Ruth Milkman and (puzzlingly) a 2002 article in the San Francisco Chronicle about an article by Rooks published only in 2003. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

google search on: allintitle: labor OR union author:"d rooks" Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:ACADEMIC because the person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity (see footnotes in article). Notability argument is on Talk page for the article. Nomoskedasticity's puzzlement over 2002 SF Chronicle article is because SF Chronicle piece references fact that she is working on the publication, not the publication itself. - Tim1965 (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The talk page is persuasive. Richard Myers (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The talk page is only persuasive in showing that certain arguments (about tenure, for example) need not apply, IF other circumstances are present. For example, Einstein was not tenured when he published his very influential theory and this made him notable despite not being tenured. In the present case, I don't see anything that makes this person notable. A few mentions in passing in some newspapers, a mention in the acknowledgements of a book, this does not really sum up to being influential or visible. If these are going to be the criteria, then each person working at a university, from postdoc on up, would be notable --Crusio (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claims of notability in the article appear to be primarily for her "Cowboy Mentality" article but I found only two citations to it in Google scholar and one magazine article (from Monthly Review) in Google news archive. I don't see that as enough to demonstrate the impact needed to pass WP:PROF #1, and I don't see any other sign of passing WP:PROF. Yes, "has just begun as an assistant prof" is not a strong argument to delete, but it's even weaker as an argument to keep, so the talk page arguments fail to convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO, as noted by David Eppstein and Crusio.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:59, 12 February 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.