Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth DePoy, Ph.D.

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 no consensus. Mangojuice^talk 18:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth DePoy, Ph.D.

Elizabeth DePoy, Ph.D. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Does not appear to meet the notabilty guidelines for an academic. Google news turns up 11 articles with the name, only three of which are actually her, and even those are a single article copied on three different sites. Appears to have a lack of multiple reliable sources necessary for a biographical article. MorrisRob (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Not all scientific journals make their content available freely so Google can search it, so Googling isn't an entirely useful strategy. Did you try to search by article title or even try finding the mentioned books to see if they were with major publishers, that would also make her notable, and you seem to have only investigated articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Fairly widespread and published scientist and author. Clearly asserts notability. scope_creep (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Easy keep, lots of scholar.google.com hits. --- tqbf 18:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete though a full professor at the University of Maine, a research university, most of the publications appear to be only very elementary textbooks, none of them by major academic publishers or university presses. According to Web of science, which is much more reliable than Google Scholar, she has published 33 journal articles, but the most cited ones have been cited only 12, 10, and 7 times, respectively. That's a very low figure. It doesnt include her books, but google scholar shows that her general methods textbooks have been cited often, but nothing else cited very much. I suspect that this is probably part of a walled garden around "Explanatory Legitimacy Theory." DGG (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, particularly for the Web of Science tip. Helpful! --- tqbf 20:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - looks like large fish in very small pond. Part of the test of notability is, anyway, the existence of reliable published material about the subject, not merely by them. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that's what a cite is. My analysis is, "strong maybe" on 3 of the 6 WP:PROF tests. --- tqbf 22:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what I noticed. There's quite a bit of reference to her papers and such, but very little on her. I thought I might source some of her personal details, but I haven't had much luck finding those sources. Hence the AFD. MorrisRob (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal details add color to an academic biography, but the basis of notability and the proper focus of this sort of article should be academic achievements. So lack of personal details is a poor reason for deletion, in my opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• "Hang on" --- I am taking in the feedback and looking to satisfy some of the issue presented here. I do think Prof. DePoy meets the standards. I believe that once I can find the appropriate linkable citations the questions will be cleared up. It also seems that I might provide some more interesting background. I am a PhD student and I have studied under Dr. DePoy. Having seen her in action and being familiar with her publications, presentations, numerous academic awards, and esteem in the international community of disability scholars I think it will be possible to depict this more precisely and credibly. I am a new contributor to WP and am learning the ropes. I hope to be an ongoing contributor. User talk:BjkitchinUser:Bjkitchin —Preceding comment was added at 17:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - publication of textbooks and full professor at a reasearch university, per WP:PROF. Delete the doctorate at the end, because it's not standard format. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2007 (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.