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. Fuzheado | Talk 17:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Marilyn Leask

Marilyn Leask (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

Not sure this meets WP:PROF. There are some highly cited works when searching on scholar such as "Learning to teach in the secondary school: A companion to school experience" from 1995 with over 350 citations and several other books with between ~200 and 75 citations, all coauthored, but independent sourcing is lacking. The article appears to have been extensively edited by the subject. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Strong Delete: This article is literally a resume. A lack of third party references, extensive editing by the subject, and the subject in question is not notable. VERSACESPACE 06:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Deletion is not cleanup (see WP:SURMOUNTABLE). However, the article in its current state is very low-quality, and cleanup in this case may require a fresh start. I'm unsure the subject counts as non-notable with that many highly cited works, though. I suspect the article can -- maybe even should -- be kept, but I'm unsure at putting in a keep vote at this point. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 07:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Marginal Weak keep. Just passes WP:Prof on GS cites (maybe a bit WP:Too soon). The professional section is written atrociously and needs revision. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC). reply

Too soon??? She's 70, & her books go back 30 years. See before the over-drastic supposedly COI removals. Johnbod ( talk) 03:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC) reply

While it's not exactly too soon for the subject, the volume of books doesn't automatically grant notability by itself. And the independent coverage of her books is limited -- we have 4 reliable source reviews in total. I do think that the combination of WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF gives a solid case for keeping. Comment that Xxanthippe is referring to earlier versions of the article, which I heartily agree were written atrociously. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 06:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The article definitely needs work but 12 books with Routledge, a major publisher, five of which appear highly to moderately cited, and will probably have been reviewed somewhere. Additionally one fairly highly cited paper with only a single coauthor. Espresso Addict ( talk) 04:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep, WP:DINC. Appears to pass both WP:AUTHOR (reviews including [1] [2] [3] [4]) and WP:PROF#C1 (four pubs with over 100 cites on Google Scholar). — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note: Article has been stubbed by XOR'easter; commentators should look at the historical version [5] at deletion nomination, which (though direly written) makes the subject's areas of notability clearer and contains many more sources for evaluation. ETA: Leask's De Montfort profile [6] has a lot of notability relevant material. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep due to further information on subject's notability and significant article cleanup since the time of AfD. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 04:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF C1. When proposed for AfD, I think there was a reasonable case for WP:TNT, but this no longer applies after WP:HEY by Espresso Addict and XOR'easter. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 05:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Worthy of being kept. Clearly, satisfies WP:NAUTHOR. Not sure about WP:NPROF but i think it does. Slightly misses out on WP:SIGCOV but i think the sum total is enough to justify her notability. Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 16:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Per above, article has been cleaned up and notability established to the point where it satisfies requirements, if only just. -- ARoseWolf ( Talk) 15:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep I am satisfied now that they meet WP:NAUTHOR. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep now it's improved. Johnbod ( talk) 03:02, 7 January 2021 (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.