Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Fernald


 * 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. Courcelles 11:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Anne Fernald

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Unsourced BLP of little or no notability. The Wordsmith Communicate 06:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete H-index of 25 does not seem terribly high for a high-citation-rate field like psych (my measure by the very unscientific method of randomly checking the h-indices of 3 or 4 other associate professors at randomly chosen research institutions), so not passing WP:PROF criterion 1, and what else is there? Ray  Talk 00:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. She's attracted a lot of major-media attention for her research, as I've added to the article. I think she passes WP:GNG, and likely also WP:PROF. She also clearly passes WP:PROF as the holder of a named chair (now added to the article as well; at the time of nomination it just said she was an associate professor). Finally, I don't know what searches the nominator and Ray were trying, but when I do it I see 13 publications with over 100 citations each in Google scholar (factoring out the ones that don't seem to be by her) which to me is easily enough for a pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep per David Eppstein. I was making a first effort to normalize my Gscholar h-index checks with others in the field. Clearly, I must've picked a bad batch. Will try to be more careful in the future. Ray  Talk 01:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Jeebus how many of this mass-nomination drive by nominator turned out this way?--Milowent • talkblp-r  06:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for substantial reasons above. A time-wasting nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2010 (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.