Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa De Propris

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Lisa De Propris

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

Non-notable per WP:ACADEMIC: senior lecturer and member of academic journals commitee, no evidence cited or available online demonstrating research that's made significant impact. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of impact material in there now including her role at the EU level. MuffledTalks comment on 'academic journals committee' underesetmiates this body's role at the regional studies association; it publishes two highly regarded academic journals including regional Studies and Spatial economic analysis. Look them up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pin Factory (talk • contribs) 18:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very well known economist with considerable impact - there are lots of references to her work and role now in this peice. Please remove the 'pedning deletion' note. I was surprised by MuffledTalks' move to delete this without properly checking out the vast amount of meterial on this perosn avaialble on the web - poor form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moon Pig 66 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC) — Moon Pig 66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. MuffledThud (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As mentioned in my reply to you at my talk page, the deletion notice needs to stay up until this discussion has run its course. Its true that the subject of the article has published, but it's not yet clear whether this published work has made "significant impact" per WP:ACADEMIC. "Significant" is of course a subjective term, so consensus is required on this from other editors. It's listed at list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions, and I hope some academic economists can comment here to clarify. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References to the extensive research pblished by this academic are now listed at this person's wiki profile, and this person's wider academic role. There are also links to wider impact - e.g. at the European Commission, European Committe of the Regions etc. This is now a well referened and supported profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pin Factory (talk • contribs) 09:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been adding to a number of academic profiles and profile on learned societies at wikipedia. This is a well known academic. The piece was initially not well referenced hence debating point but has been improved by several contributors and worthy of remaining in place. Suggest retainCocoa Channel (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)— Cocoa Channel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Now well evidenced profile in terms of extensive publications, high level positions held, editing of journals etc. 'above average professor'? yes.Pin Factory (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work on improving the article. Note that AFD discussions are debated for at least seven days: please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for more info. MuffledThud (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Closing admin will note the activity of several WP:SPAs so far. Given the expected high-emotion, low-substance rebuttals, I'll try to make only a single entry here. The "considerable impact" claim is clearly wrong, at least from the perspective of the peer-reviewed literature. WoS show an h-index of 6 with only around 50 total citations. Much of what is provided as WP:RS are simply links to technical reports, internet videos (the EuroTaxi), press releases, and so forth – not the substance of passing WP:PROF. Book holdings are also not notable: "Industrial Districts" book is < 40 and the EU book is < 20. With no disrespect intended, I think it would be correct to say that this is a very average professor. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

disagree - both are new books and expected cites not likely to be higher than these. The "industrial districts" volume also contains all the seminal contributors in the field on industrial districts, if anyone would like to check. And I'm not a WP:SPA. 50 total citations also clearly wrong - have a look at some academic reference databases. Agricola44, you're simply wrong, respectfully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pin Factory (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would like to point out that any comments made in this discussion that do not address the question of whether Dr De Propris passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines can only reflect badly on her, making it look as if she is more interested in using Wikipedia for publicity than creating a reputation via her academic work. If I was considering someone for an academic position and found this AfD discussion during my background checks I would be asking some very searching questions about integrity at the interview, in the unlikely event that the application would progress to that stage. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted by Agricola44 there is little evidence of sufficient scholarly impact. Senior lecturers are unlikely to be notable. Article created too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, per Agricola44. Nsk92 (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2010 (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.