Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Queen


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Robin Queen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability. Page was created by the individual it is about. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment on above statement Article was not created by subject but by a misguided employee of her department - see talk page: I work at the University of Michigan in the Linguistics Department and am creating pages for our current faculty to facilitate the search for information by students about faculty. (Unless there is any evidence that is Robin Queen.)  Pam  D  18:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Subject lacks any significant notability. Meatsgains (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Holders of named chairs at major universities pass a notability criteria for academics. I am sure a search would bring up lots more links and information on Queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * did you actually try searching before saying I am sure a search would bring up lots more links and information on Queen?? Because a search brings up plenty of people by that name... None of which appear to be her. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A search brings up her Google Scholar page, which indicates lots of articles published by her. It also indicates that she was the co-editor-in-chief of the Journal of English Linguistics, which might be enough for her to pass another notability guideline for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Here is her google scholar page. Her h-index is 11. I am not sure if this would be enough to have her be considered a notable figure in her field.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Per this article Queen is an at-large member of the Linguistics Society of America board.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment' Here is an article from The Gaurdian that mentions some of QUeen's work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Here is a health and wellness publication also with an article on Queen's work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: holder of named chair and chair of department, with coverage in independent source. Pam  D  18:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:PROF. Previous speedy was declined for the same reason. --Drm310 (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Named professor at a major university, was an editor-in-chief of a prominent journal, is an elected fellow of Linguistic Society of America. Certainly enough here to pass WP:PROF even without looking further. Nsk92 (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Passes WP:Prof formally, although GS citations are markedly lower than normally expected. The claim of an editorship cannot be independently verified. I note that there are copyright issues discussed on the talk page. If it were not for the WP:Prof guideline I would have voted delete as WP:Too soon. Article was created by editor paid by U Michigan. Her employer should note that such conduct can have unintended consequences. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC).
 * Keep. Citation record not strong enough to make a convincing case for WP:PROF but she passes three other criteria (named chair, society fellow, and journal editor). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, as passing WP:PROF with a named chair at a major university, elected fellowship and journal editor-in-chief. It does not appear to be autobiographical. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The longest paragraph in the article is the one on her work and its focus. Since I wrote this after reading about her various works, but without specifically quoting any one description, I do not see how it could possibly be a copyright issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion on the talk page about copyright. If you have sorted this out, then well done. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC).


 * Keep: Passes WP:PROF.   Montanabw (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2016 (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.