Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catriona Sandilands


 * 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. WP:SNOW applies with the overwhelming keep !votes. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix  talk  03:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Catriona Sandilands

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of an academic, whose claims to notability are resting on primary sources rather than reliable and independent ones: the WorldCat directory entry of her own book, her faculty profile on the website of her own employer, and another "staff" profile on the website of an organization she's directly affiliated with. These are not sources that establish the notability of an academic, however -- people get into Wikipedia on the basis of sources in which they're the subject of analytical coverage by other people, not on the basis of sources in which they're the author. And while she was a Canada Research Chair, she was Tier 2 (defined as "potential to become a leader in her field") rather than Tier 1 (defined as "already a leader in her field"), so that title still isn't an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts the article from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: I've located some third-party reviews that could be used to expand the article: NWSA Journal Volume 13, Number 2, Summer 2001 pp. 210-213 & Book Review: Catriona Sandilands, The Good-Natured Feminist: Ecofeminism and the Quest for Democracy." Environmental Practice, 2(4), pp. 323–324. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: Without knowing anything about this field, I have located and added references from reliable, independent third-party sources, including, and reviews and citation in books and articles by other theorists, including some named on the Ecofeminism page. I think it is the article which is poor, rather than the subject of the article not being notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR and, on the same grounds, WP:PROF, given that hers is a field where book reviews and the like are more helpful for judging impact than citation counts. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to what others said above, she also served as elected President of two national scholarly societies (I have added that info to the article). So arguably passes WP:PROF (but in any case passes WP:PROF). Nsk92 (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF as shown in the above rational by K.e.coffman and XOR&#39;easter. Thsmi002 (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * keep Widely cited according to Google Scholar. Seems to meet both WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF. Sandals1 (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: well known feminist scholar in the field of environmental humanities. Netherzone (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.