Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Grayshield

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Grayshield[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)

Non-notable academic. I haven't found any independent coverage. The sources listed are just the subject's publications (articles and books), along with two YouTube videos.

The article is a spin-off from Indigenous Ways of Knowing, which has its own AfD discussion and will most likely be deleted. Both were created by fringe theory promoter and POV-pusher Xicanx (talk · contribs) (their behaviour is discussed at the aforementioned AfD page). Un assiolo (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Un assiolo (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Un assiolo (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Un assiolo (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being a notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was able to find evidence that the subject has published. But a total of five publications with >5 citations and the highest are 67, 61, and 56. Doesn't seem like it is enough to for a pass of WP:PROF#C1. Couldn't find any evidence of passing any of the other options for WP:PROF either. Article states that the subject is a professor at New Mexico State. It appears she was an associate professor there in 2016 but doesn't appear on the current faculty directory, unless she switched departments. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic astroturfing by the same user who's creating or massively adding POV to these ~~articles~~ essays, then edit-warring to defend them. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd expect book reviews to be more illuminating than citation counts in this field, but with only one book, there's not really much to go on. Neither WP:AUTHOR nor WP:PROF appear to be met. XOR'easter (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am hesitant to eliminate an article for which we might have systemic bias. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, As a member of the Indigenous Wikiproject, just noting that this article was pretty clearly created to bolster another article that is being AfD'd due to the concerns of wikiproject members. There are serious concerns about how a group of articles are being used to misrepresent Indigenous views and issues, and this is part of that group. Just being Indigenous doesn't make her notable. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject passes neither WP:PROF nor (with only a single edited volume to her credit) WP:AUTHOR, and no alternative ways of knowing how she might be notable are evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2021 (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.