Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Spindler

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Spindler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Marked for notability concerns in 2014. Only 2 articles link to this: Bush Heritage Australia and List of people named Rebecca. She has written a fair few articles but don't think she meets WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. ‎ LibStar (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Environment, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and keep improving. Article needs improvement but subject easily meets WP:BASIC and likely WP:GNG. Straight off the bat, Wikipedia Library gives you this 2012 Australian Women's Weekly feature article on Rebecca Spindler and her influence as a zoologist ("catalyst for change" in Australia and abroad). Even if we don't count the sponsored Guardian article recognising Spindler as one of 30 Australians making their mark, she is often cited in the Australian media as an expert on animal-related issues. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We're considering gossip rags and sponsored articles as reliable sources now? TarnishedPath^talk 10:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The AWW has not been listed as an unreliable source and the only refs to it I can find on WP as a source say that it IS a reliable source. Calling it "gossip rag" sounds borderline sexist as it is a magazine predominantly for women.LPascal (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Keep the article and keep improving. I think this person also meets criteria for Notability (Acadmics)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) She has had an impact in her field and is highly cited and published. She meets criteria 7 The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic. Here's some sources showing her impact and reliable secondary sources showing she is sought after expert in her field. I could find more sources about her but don't have time right now.https://www.nespthreatenedspecies.edu.au/people/rebecca-spindler

https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/tag/rebecca-spindler/ https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-spindler-1249/articles CSIRO publishing (Aus government's leading science research organisation) https://ebooks.publish.csiro.au/author/Spindler%2CRebecca LPascal (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC) More sources showing impact outside academia:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS Led a project to stop coral bleaching on Great Barrier Reef; she c-authored a paper on indicators to measure the impact of biodiversity research https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS ; her research has helped in the preservation of one of Australia's threatened species, the Tasmanian Devil https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS.LPascal (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2024 (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.