Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy S. Thompson


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Amy S. Thompson

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Taking this to AfD because Speedy deletion was denied under "5C," but the individual has not obtained distinguished professorship. I don't see notability, but hoping those more academically inclined can determine if this is up to standards

Subject seems to be an ordinary professor by the looks of this article, and I do not see anything that demonstrates WP:GNG, and not sure references fall under WP:SIGCOV.

I can't seem to make out how this individual is more notable than any other professor. (Also seems she participated in something but did not win) Cray04 (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cray04 (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Some coverage in Gnews where this person was interviewed when the university was cutting language studies, but nothing notable. I don't see notability with what's given in the article either. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This is a bad nomination: the nominator has apparently been told that "Woodburn Professor of Applied Linguistics" at West Virginia University is the type of named professorship at a research university that passes WP:PROF, but has failed to understand what they were told and has repeated only a garbled version of that in the nomination. Looking more carefully, though, the Woodburn Professorship is not a "one step beyond full professor" level of distinction, but rather something that is typically given to "mid-career" associate professors, so it probably doesn't pass #C5. That all said, I think the subject also has enough well-cited works to make a plausible case for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. There are also seem to be three reviews of The Role of Context in Language Teachers’ Self Development and Motivation . Not enough for WP:AUTHOR on its own, but certainly contributing to the broader notability that David Eppstein has suggested. &mdash;siro&chi;o 03:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. My findings are similar to David Eppstein's, but I would add that she was hired as head of department and subsequently appointed to an additional, higher-level administrative position, which offsets the breadth of the Woodburn professorships. I've done some polishing of the article to make notability clearer, and initially edit conflicted with the article creator,, making some of the same improvements. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep on reasonable GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC).
 * Weak keep Above discussions are reasonable.  killer bee    05:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment normally I'd expect a claim of a professorship to be supported by at least a direct mention on an institutional website. In this case, the current Woodburn professor appears to be someone quite different, while the source supporting Thompson's holding the post (since 2018) is her own 31-page CV available as a pdf from the currently cited source, the main web-page curiously not mentioning her professorship. I think other editors are correct that this professorship is a red herring anyway for notability. But is there any limit to our trust of academics, or do we believe the claims they put in their CVs without further verification? Elemimele (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 5 links to a different department within the same university. The source found by David Eppstein indicates that multiple Woodburn Professorships can be awarded throughout different departments. See, and the Inside Higher Ed source that indicates Thompson holds her named professorship as of 2023. Vycl1994 (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * To answer the general question, I believe we have usually accepted CVs hosted by the university/department website, at least for reputable universities, though if reasonably challenged of course further verification becomes required. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Her Woodburn professor title is noted on the website of her department of which she is the chair here. These websites are usually not managed by a central unit at the university, and each office's website at college level is maintained/updated by their respective staff/admins.
 * Thompson has a role in the dean's office in addition to her chair role. Her dean's office page was updated today. Her Woodburn Professor title is reflected in her bio here. Oztanmeh (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Eight papers >100 citations plus multiple book reviews is enough for me. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep – Article fairly passes the mentioned policies, even has a Scholar profile. Toadette  (Happy holiday!) 05:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep More than 5 papers with 100+ citations makes her eminently notable. This is a very poor nomination and deserves a salmon out the freezer and slapped across the kipper with it. Very poor.   scope_creep Talk  10:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable per sources available. Metroick (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2023 (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.