Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Carol Roberts


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Leslie Carol Roberts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails Notability - all the sources are written by her, not about her. GRuban (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 13:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not true. Some of the sources are book reviews in magazines (e.g. Orion) and institutional sources from where she works/has worked. MurielMary (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - published author with media coverage. MurielMary (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What category of notability does that pass? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC).
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:Prof. GS cites negligible. Just publishing stuff does not give notability. It has to be noted by others. WP:too soon Xxanthippe (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC).
 *  Keep  - She is well published, has media coverage and additionally often holds public lecturers. I am not seeing a failure of WP:Prof, she is a Fulbright fellow and has had a significant impact on Antarctic Studies. However I do think this article needs clean up with better sources and CE. Jooojay (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Being well published (whatever that means) is not enough. The work has to be well cited. I can find only 6 citations on Google scholar. Compare this to Articles for deletion/Dorothy Cheney (scientist) with 32,673 citations. WP:Prof is not passed by a long margin: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC).
 * Leslie Carol Roberts is not only a research scholar and professor (like the example you provided), but also a journalist, book author, and the chair of a department at a major university. Google Scholar is best used for research, but it doesn't cover all of the bases. Jooojay (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Being the chair of a university department does not pass any category of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC).
 * I wasn't implying that "being the chair of a university department does not pass any category of WP:Prof" either, I was simply stating that looking at one category is simply not a fair way of assessing a person if they are claiming multiple skillsets. That being said, I remove my vote because I think this is hard to assess considering the multiple skillset based on how poorly written and sourced the current article is. There may be a possible COI by an editor. Jooojay (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Being a Fulbright Scholar is not sufficent for notability. The number of secondary sources is small and one of these is just a link to a calendar entry and the other to the faculty page. Being faculty is not enough in itself to meet the notability test. Timoluege (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigmamsg 02:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete completely fails the notability guidelines for both writers and academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. One book is a good start, but with only one specialist-magazine review (that I can find) it isn't enough by itself for WP:AUTHOR nor for WP:PROF. And I agree that the Fulbright is also not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 31 May 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.