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The result was Withdrawn. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Felicity Meakins[edit]

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

No coverage in independent sources. Majority of included references are to non-independent coverage or articles written by her. Only coverage in the media are incidental quotations of no significance. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Kb.au (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator – Clearly I've misvalued the importance of her academic work. I'll let someone else close this. Kb.au (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to approach GNG. Her work has not been impactful in any way that would pass the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk)

23:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

John, do you read the articles and the sources before you vote? I ask because you voted in five deletion discussions within six minutes of this one. Speed reader, or just going by the "feel" of the article? I can't see how you could possibly do WP:BEFORE in a minute.198.58.168.40 (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has been cited 791 times, according to Google Scholar. H-index is 17, although I am not sure if that is good or not. The 791 cites are impressive. From other reading I think she has made a significant contribution to her field. Some cites in popular media are also convincing.198.58.168.40 (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly-cited specialist who has had a significant impact on her area. Not impressed with these apparently repeated attempts to whack articles on prominent and important linguists specialising in indigenous languages. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the second time in two weeks that a linguist prominent in documenting and promoting interest in indigenous languages has been targeted for deletion. This specialized expertise needs to be documented on Wikipedia whatever the more general criteria for academics.--Ipigott (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets WP:PROF with a high number of citations and a significant impact in her field. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF per K.e.coffman and especially Criterion 2, for the ARC Future Fellowship, a major academic award, as demonstrated by recent article revisions. I'd also note that PROF criteria are an alternative to GNG criteria, obviating the need to supply evidence of coverage in media. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. Hmlarson (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2018 (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.