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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Jo Pike

Jo Pike (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Appears to have been created as an election candidate, but fails WP:NPOL. Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF: not particularly notable rate of citations. She's contributed to one inquiry, but I don't think that alone meets NPROF #1. Bondegezou ( talk) 15:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK ( Talk| Contribs) 15:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK ( Talk| Contribs) 15:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK ( Talk| Contribs) 15:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK ( Talk| Contribs) 15:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - in political terms she does not currently meet notability requirements, and I would say that many of the arguments for deletion put forward at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Alcroft also apply here. The article as it stands does not convince me that she meets the notability standard required for academics. Both of these things could change in the future, but for now I think this should be deleted. Dunarc ( talk) 23:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete. Because the case against political notability is so clear-cut, I think the main question is not that, but whether she is academically notable. Senior lecturer is kind of at the borderline level of notability; if she were reader or better professor, I'd be more inclined to expect notability (although that would still have to be proven by some WP:PROF criterion, as that does not directly consider academic ranks). The article lists two reviews for one book, none for another, and I didn't find any more in my brief searching, but the bigger problem there is that they are edited rather than authored and that doesn't count for as much. So I don't think she passes WP:AUTHOR. And her citation counts on Google scholar are 149, 59, 51, 49, ..., respectable but not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Subject in question has not (yet) been elected to any notable position of government. -- RaviC ( talk) 23:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Neither was Marilyn Monroe or Albert Einstein. You should address what the subject is (an academic and book author), not what they are not (yet, an MP). — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:40, 24 November 2019 (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.