Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Raphals
- 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — MarkH21 (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Lisa Raphals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Falls short of WP:PROF with no evidence of awards, memberships, etc. to satisfy criteria 2-7. For criteria 1, the citation statistics fall short of "either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates" (WP:PROF#C1): Scopus (17, 14, 7, 5, 2, 1), Web of Science (1, 1, 1), and Google Scholar (235, 174, 53, 51, 49, 40, 18, 13, 12, ...). Also failed to find evidence of passing WP:GNG. Additionally, there are some COI issues as the article was evidently created by the subject's husband (not particularly important for notability though). — MarkH21 (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by nominator — MarkH21 (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:AUTHOR. Several of Raphals' books are the subject of reviews in academic journals. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. She seems to pass WP:AUTHOR at least. For a humanities scholar in a niche field she is relatively highly cited (per Google Scholar), and as a full professor she is clearly a well established academic, so I'm inclined to believe she passes WP:PROF as well. --Tataral (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- WP:SNOW Keep Flies past WP:AUTHOR, and citations make it pretty clear that her work has the impact to pass WP:PROF. How lovely that her husband created a page for her.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR by way of multiple reviews of multiple books. In the humanities (as in law and pure mathematics, to name a couple other fields), Google Scholar counts are typically unilluminating. Given Raphals' field, reviews are the first place I'd look for a pass of WP:PROF#C1. I think that she succeeds on that, as well. I suppose that the COI could be an issue in principle, but given the respectable academic-bio-stub nature of the current article, it doesn't seem to have mattered in practice. XOR'easter (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- It is correct that low citations in Google Scholar generally don't mean much in the humanities. Which is also why her citation counts are particularly strong for her field. 235, 174 for her most widely cited works is quite high for books in a niche humanities field, and in itself enough to pass WP:PROF in my opinion. --Tataral (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2019 (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.