Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Brown (social scientist)

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Brown (social scientist)

[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)

Zero notability. No in-depth, independent coverage. Fails

WP:NACADEMIC. Veggies (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Veggies (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Before anyone says it, fellowship in the
WP:NPROF#3, as fellowship is quite trivial. Curbon7 (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep. We have nine reviews of four books. That would normally be enough for
WP:AUTHOR for me, but my keep is weak because the two with the most reviews are edited volumes rather than authored works. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep. Similar to
WP:AUTHOR, due to the number of books that have reviews in academic journals. Are the books "well known" and "significant"? I think it could be argued either way, but well known enough for academics to do substantive reviews of them, although each of them seems to have only one review, hence the "weak". I improved the article a bit, added an education section, improved categories and infobox, I didn't add any significant coverage CT55555(talk) 15:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

She is a long-standing member of methodologically-orientated organisations, such as the Pedagogy Network of the National Centre for Research Methods (https://www.ncrm.ac.uk/research/pedagogy.php) and the Centre for Imaginative Ethnography (https://imaginative-ethnography.com/how-we-work/who-we-are/), and edits in the capacity of a methodological expert for the Journal of Participatory Research Methods (https://jprm.scholasticahq.com/editorial-board), Disability and Society (https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=editorialBoard&journalCode=cdso20) and The Qualitative Report (https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/editorialboard.html).

and

She is regularly invited as a keynote presenter and workshop leader, such as for example for the National Centre for Research Methods, the Social Research Association (https://the-sra.org.uk/SRA/SRA/Events/Archive-of-presentations.aspx?hkey=5585b053-e9b5-499f-8714-a2272a08081c), the American Association for Public Opinion Research (https://www.aapor.org/Education-Resources/Online-Education/Webinar-Details.aspx?webinar=WEB1222), Photovoice Worldwide (https://www.photovoiceworldwide.com/key-themes-in-photovoice-research/), as well as numerous symposia and network conferences (https://blogs.staffs.ac.uk/c3centre/events/event/art-practice-based-research-seminar-series-hosted-by-agata-lulkowska/; https://www.ucl.ac.uk/qualitative-health-research-network/nicole-brown; https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/centre-for-qualitative-research/2022/03/09/qualitative-research-symposium-2022/). 2001:871:205:5773:A0A2:93BE:CF29:EB1F (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes
WP:NAUTHOR as we can find reviews. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep Satisfies
WP:AUTHOR based on books alone IMHO, her academic h-index is 15 which is considered ok MetricMaster (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[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.