Deletion of Carmen Robertson

Comment: per  "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", based on representation of her work in Google Scholar https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?start=0&q=%22carmen+robertson%22%7C%22carmen+l+robertson%22+indigenous%7Cindian%7C%22first+nations%22&hl=en&as_sdt=1,5, the number of scholarly https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cites=6740069756435739569&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=1,5&hl=en citations for ''Seeing Red'', and the fact that she is prominent enough in her field to serve on the editorial board of the Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, published by Cambridge University Press. In combination, to my mind these points demonstrate significant and international (she is Canadian) impact in her academic discipline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Not enough in-depth coverage to meet , and as been pointed out above, doesn't appear to meet any of the niche notability criteria either (e.g. PROF
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Meets  #1. While ''Seeing Red'' won three Saskatchewan Book Awards, it was not her only book. She also wrote ''Mythologizing Norval Morrisseau'' (2016) and has edited/contributed to ''Clearing a Path: New Ways of Seeing Traditional Indigenous Art'' (2009) and ''The Routledge International Handbook of Intercultural Arts Research''. The sourcing for this article has been improved dramatically since its nomination and I invite the closer to reject !votes based on the circumstances of its creation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMICS)

Comment: It is to be noted that a "CarmenRobertson" was an attendee at the Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism 2016/University of Regina|Regina Art & Feminism Meet-up. Is there a  here? Are there others
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: I do not see that this meets  or . Many of the sources included Special:Permalink/709827895|as of now are self-authored, or fail  for other reasons. I'd like to say, however, that accusations other "delete"-voters have made ({{u|Carrite}} and {{u|ThurnerRupert}}) are counterproductive. Nearly everything we do in the Wikipedia world is experimental to some degree. Perhaps it is true that the organizers of this particular edit-a-thon could have done some things differently; but if so, that is not a reason to vilify them. Making an effort to bring new contributors to Wikipedia is commendable. If there are problems, the best courses of action are to correct them and to try to avoid them in future events. Pointing fingers and questioning motives accomplishes nothing worthwhile
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ACADEMIC||WP:RS)

Comment: The ''potential'' exists for notability per , and/or as a writer of non-fiction books, but the ''sourcing'' here is entirely of the |primary variety and thus isn't adequate to demonstrate that. No prejudice against recreation in the future if she can be referenced better than this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES)