Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth McLeay

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. (non-admin closure) Catrìona (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth McLeay[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)

Despite her PhD on cabinet selection and parliamentary careers in New Zealand the article fails the WP:GNG, even she taught at City of London Polytechnic and University of Auckland before taking government and politics at Victoria Universty of Wellington is lacking significant coverage other than news websites. Sheldybett (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The deletion rational points out weak sourcing. I agree that notability is a problem; I don't see anything close to a pass of WP:NPROF. BenKuykendall (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I really can't believe that there's no WP:SIGCOV for this woman, but I can't find any and what is provided in the article doesn't meet it (it consists of drive-by references, quotes from her - not coverage of her - and her own books). WP:NPROF isn't the only relevant standard - she might be notable as a politician or even just under WP:BASIC, but at the moment there is not enough to sustain notability.FOARP (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article as it stands does not mention any of her publications except one, published this year (for which I see there is a review published in the journal Political Science in October 2018 [1] - it seems likely that there may be other reviews still to be published). She also published a book in 1995, The cabinet and political power in New Zealand, which Google Scholar says has been cited 68 times. The Citation metrics guidelines say "For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information." and recommend "looking at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat)". So the 1995 book is in 189 libraries, and the book published this year is already in 30 libraries. She is also the author of quite a few articles. The Deletion rationales above don't mention citations or library holdings - I hope that those editors looked, as WP:SIGCOV and meeting WP:GNG are not required - I think we need to be looking at WP:NACADEMIC #1 and perhaps #7. I would say that it is significant that she was one of the two academics, of the 19 who criticised the government's legislation, who represented the group at the parliamentary select committee, as reported in one of the sources included (and one of the other academics has in fact said that they were the two who did the majority of the work [2]). WP:NACADEMIC does not require coverage of her or about her, it requires evidence of her impact. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is enough evidence to pass WP:GNG - the article needs a lot of work NealeFamily (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per RebeccaGreen's discovery of the other book, the multiple published reviews of both books, and WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I added some co-authored books. So we're up to five books with a total of nine reviews (at least one each), clearly enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR with multiple reviews of two single-author books, as well as reviews of collaborations. XOR'easter (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments by RebeccaGreen--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2018 (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.