Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Ashurst Gooch


 * 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   no consensus. Coffee //  have a cup  //  flagged revs now!  // 05:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Amy Ashurst Gooch

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

fails wp:prof. notability has not been established Theserialcomma (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete weak keep -- with a name like that it's not hard to know where we stand in terms of coverage: minimal David Eppstein's search makes it clear I did mine the wrong way, his shows that she more or less passes PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No impact yet. Weak keep as above. Article created too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete per failing WP:PROF after WP:GNG, BLP. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. --Glenfarclas (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks to be an h-index of about 3, according to GS – not surprising for a very-early-career professor. Concur: another textbook case of an article too soon. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC).
 * My GS searches gave an h-index of 9, with over 100 citations for the most heavily cited work. Still, I think that's a little below threshold for WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. According to GS, she has four publications with over 100 citations each (four of the top five results from that search; the other one is someone else). Despite the modest h-index (12 or 13) I think that's enough for a weak keep. The reason I didn't put "weak" in my comment is that I ran the search the other way, looking for "non-photorealistic", and her name came out in the top two hits. So I think she's (with her coauthor Bruce Gooch) the leading expert in an important subtopic of computer graphics. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.