Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrey McKinney

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey McKinney

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient evidence of notability, Google Scholar suggests relatively few cites for her work [1] compared for example to other notable philosophers (e.g. [2]), even someone she has worked with but without an article has far better citation count [3] She fails all the criteria of WP:NACADEMICS, and as there is little independent coverage of her, she also fails WP:GNG. As the writer of the article has created a number of articles on poorly cited academics, I'd suggest starting new articles with more notable ones. Hzh (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't find much source-wise.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also have not found much in the way of good sourcing so far. However, I suspect that Google Scholar is not very indicative in general for academics working in philosophy (and comparing anyone's citation count to one of the most famous philosophers of the twentieth century means basically nothing). This is a case where scholarly book reviews, for example, would be important for passing WP:AUTHOR and/or WP:PROF#C1. XOR'easter (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this case Google Scholar might be more useful as I can't find any review article. Presence of reviews is certainly useful for showing notability, but not being able to find reviews does not equal absence of reviews, since it's harder to prove an absence without access to academic database in university. One of the example in Google Scholar I gave is actually not someone well-known but still has high number of citations [4]. Hzh (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability must be shown, it is not neccesary to disprove. There is nothing showing it here. The positions and activities mentioned in the article, and the sourcing, do not rise to a level of passing the notability guidelines for either academics or writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think getting the Presidential Award and founding the largest philosophy MA program in Texas can show notability. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the award given by the President of Texas State University, that is too localized to be notable. The founding of any MA program in Texas is also not notable. Hzh (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2018 (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.