Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Pfaffenberger


 * 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. ff m  22:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Angela Pfaffenberger

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has been re-created several times today and I would like to bring it here to either put it to bed for good or see if there is enough consensus to keep it. This article is mainly advertising for a private practice and subject is non-notable beyond that.  TN ‑ X - Man  16:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless independent sources are produced which back up these claims. As it sits right now, it's just "I'm very influential- we know because I said so." Friday (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There's barely a claim of notability here, no independent sources, and it appears to be autobiograpy and spam. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Peacock (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete pretty clearly a WP:COI in play here as well... just look at the creator's username! Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not pass WP:ACADEMIC. No evidence of significant citability of her research: very little in GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks; I also checked the WebOfScience and Scopus and found very little there. Apparently just a few publications published by her and almost no citations of her work. No other evidence of her research having made significant impact that I could find anywhere else (awards, honors, etc). Does not seem to have a webpage at Oregon College of Oriental Medicine and it is not very clear what sort of facult position she has there. All in all, does not pass WP:ACADEMIC based on the evidence available. Nsk92 (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * delete no evidence of scholarly impact required to pass required to pass criterion 1 of WP:PROF (two hits in google scholar, grand total of one citation of her work - see NSk92's comments for link). No claim, or evidence to suggest, any other criterion of WP:PROF is met.  Article makes no claim to passing WP:BIO and a google search suggests that she is not the subject of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Nsk92 and Pete Hurd. Looks like a badly formatted CV and the "infobox bodybuilder" doesn't really help either. --Crusio (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * delete and salt. --Buridan (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2008 (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.