Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Davies (scientist)

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Davies (scientist)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:PROF as an academic. This source is a bit more indepth but it's a primary source by her employer. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment: their GS shows 3 papers with 95+ citations they are very close to the bar as a professor but probably still WP:TOOSOON; however this is presumably a low citation field. I did find this piece in Mashable [1] but that is also a bit little for GNG. --hroest 13:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. According to ORCiD [2], the Curtin University senior lecturer described in our article is now at University of Western Australia, where she is full professor and head of school [3], neither an automatic pass of WP:PROF but both suggestive of a pass. She should not be confused with a different Amanda Davies who studies the hospitality industry at Charles Sturt University in Australia. Her book Geographies of Aging has at least four published reviews: Can. Stud. Pop., Ageing & Soc., Geog. Res., Pop. Space & Place. Her Google Scholar profile shows two publications with triple-digit citations, one of them this book. She is also coauthor of a second book Pandemic Cities: The COVID-19 Crisis and Australian Urban Regions but I didn't find any reviews of it. So this is all very borderline. What pushes me towards the keep side of the fence is that another of her UWA profiles [4] lists her as "Fellow of the Institute of Australian Geographers (2017)" (see also fellow commendation). That might be enough for WP:PROF#C3. But the article is going to need a ground-up rewrite; nothing in the nominated version is worth keeping. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David and WP:BEFORE. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the Google Scholar page at https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=2bntgSMAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No secondary sources contrary to WP:GNG. // GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY following significant updating, clean up and addition of several reliable sources. She's not the strongest academic but in my view well passes WP:PROF. Cabrils (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2023 (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.