Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa McKenzie

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa McKenzie

[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)

This article puzzles me, and I don't think the subject meets any relevant notability criteria. She certainly fails WP:PROF. (I suspect the article is out of date -- I don't think she is employed by Durham anymore, and I'm not sure she's employed as an academic anywhere.) There is of course a bit of coverage regarding her arrest, but not enough to satisfy WP:PERP. Most of the sources are not secondary; there's too much use of sources authored by her. I don't think we need this one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Have changed my !vote based upon what others have found and added to the article. Delete per nom. Clearly, notability has not been shown. A search turned up nothing but a mention here and there about the subject or her children. Very few secondary sources found and not enough to show notability. −AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are a few reviews of her Policy Press book. (1) Guillaume, Céile. Revue Française de Science Politique, vol. 66, no. 6, 2016, pp. 1049–51. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44122354. Accessed 26 Oct. 2023. (2) link (3) link. Suspect it's not enough for an WP:NAUTHOR pass, but editors with more knowledge about academic reviews will have to chime in. Suriname0 (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, Women, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep her book has multiple reviews and a high citation count for this field (over 500) which means she is close to the bar to pass NAUTHOR or by an academic criterion. Taking this together with her political activism and her coverage there paints a picture of multiple independent pillars of notability adding up to a weak keep. Each by itself would not sufficient but taking together it seems they are. --hroest 19:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her book Getting by: Estates, class and culture in austerity Britain has 579 citations in GS and several reviews, and another research paper has >100 citations; there are also multiple independent sources covering her activism and political candidacy already in the article. ETA: She is still an academic, now at the University of Bedfordshire [1]. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: So, which notability standard does she meet, in your view? e.g., which component of PROF? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[For some reason your ping did not go through.] A mixture of WP:PROF by citations in a niche area, WP:AUTHOR by reviews, plus GNG by other coverage, but fundamentally how does it improve the encyclopedia to delete this article on an unsual case of a working-class woman in academia? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have updated the article to show her current status as senior lecturer at the University of Bedfordshire, which the nominator didn't find. Appears clearly notable - articles about her, as well as by, in The Guardian, etc. PamD 07:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My expansion of the article to discuss Lockdown Diaries was removed by the deletion proposer with the complaint that it relied on primary sources. Tagging with {{cn}} or similar might have been more constructive, in the spirit of working to improve the encyclopedia as opposed to being keen to get rid of this article. I don't think the Middlesex uni news item can be called primary, but anyway have reinstated the paragraph, added a new independent source and reused one which was used elsewhere. PamD 17:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I added seven published reviews to her 2015 book (the three linked above and four more) and two more of a 2017 co-edited volume. If we had that many reviews in total of two authored books it would be enough for me. The "articles about her" in the Guardian appear to be routine election coverage of a type that would not appear to pass WP:NPOL. Which leaves only the "Cereal Killer" affair, which by itself would not pass WP:BIO1E. But adding it all together I think she squeaks by. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added her Scopus profile to her wikidata record: [2]; it provides further evidence of a healthy number of academic citations. Coupled with secondary book reviews identified above, and further coverage in WP:RS then I consider this a pass. ResonantDis_tortion 12:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If memory serves, the late DGG used to advise the following threshold for humanities/social studies PROF 1 test: at least 2 books by solid commercial or academic publishers. Getting By would seem to be one of these. However, McKenzie seems to be at least mid-career, but does not have a publication record that clearly places her above the average professor in this sense. Much of the article is about her political activism, for which she is not notable. I presume this article will be kept, which I think reflects the notability standards have eroded considerably over time. 128.252.172.17 (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going by the book-review standard alone, this would be a borderline case, with considerations pointing in different directions. On the one hand, one of the books has well over the minimum number of reviews we'd ask for. On the other hand, the other two books are an edited collection and a co-edited volume. Having coverage of other things pushes in the direction of a keep. XOR'easter (talk) 15:05, 2 November 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.