Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Barnes

:{{la|Elizabeth Barnes}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elizabeth_Barnes Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Elizabeth Barnes}})

Does not seem to meet the criteria WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• I've linked the subject's Google Scholar profile in the article. There's one paper listed that's obviously not hers - a 1959 article in the Journal of Nuclear Materials. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. She is an editor-in-chief of the journal Philosophy Compass[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1747-9991/homepage/EditorialBoard.html] (I added the info about that to the article), so possibly passes WP:PROF#C8. The journal is indexed by the WebOfScience and by Scopus, for whatever it's worth, but I don't know how well' established and well-regarded this journal is in the field. 20:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsk92 (talk • contribs)
• Provisional Delete. Early career academic. Only possibility for keep is a technical pass of the WP:PROF#C8 guideline. Probably WP:Too soon as now. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC).
• Keep. Philosophy Compass is a respected (if unusual) journal, and Barnes has sole-authored papers in top journals (Mind, Nous, etc.) attracting good numbers of citations. Her book has just been published with OUP, and has forthcoming reviews in the [https://www.academia.edu/26400416/Review_The_Minority_Body_A_Theory_of_Disability_by_Elizabeth_Barnes Journal of Moral Philosophy] and [https://www.academia.edu/28427205/Review_of_The_Minority_Body_A_Theory_of_Disability_by_Elizabeth_Barnes The Australasian Journal of Philosophy]; two high-profile and well-established philosophy journals. These won't be the only reviews. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. Sources are respected within this field. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. Philosophy Compass is a leading journal, and Barnes is a prominent contemporary philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.22.108 (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC) — 137.54.22.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep The list of publications and editorship of Philosophy Compass suggests she meets WP:PROF Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per most above. It seems this person passes WP:PROF. --Oakshade (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per pass of WP:PROF#C8. There may also be a case for WP:AUTHOR (though I admittedly don't know much about reliable philosophy sources). In addition to the reviews that Josh Milburn points out, The Minority Body (2016) has been reviewed in The Philosophers' Magazine and NDPR. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• I've added those citations to the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY. Normally, we don't keep associate professors, but she seems to pass the "PROF test" otherwise. Bearian (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.