Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Willman


 * 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 - filelake shoe   &#xF0F6;   10:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Beth Willman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Beth Willman appears to be notable for only one event (it would be stretching it to say that each satellite is a separate event); and there is no coverage of any other biographical detail in secondary sources. Thus, she probably isn't notable by the general criteria for people. Nor can I find anything in her CV or in a Web of Science search to support academic notability. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment According to gscholar she has a H-index of 44, which based on a random sampling appears to fairly typical for members of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey collaboration. She also has a handful of papers with 200+ citations, on two of which she is the first author. This probably puts here over the bar of WP:PROF.TR 13:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's strange - I did a WOS search a week ago and thought I remembered a low figure; but this time I get 24, which is good. The best estimate may lie between the two figures. So maybe she passes the citation criterion. However, there is still verifiability - is there any source besides her home page for biographical details? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * According to her CV her h-index is 26 (in April this year). Of course, this still leaves the question whether this is high compared to other professors in her field. (The quick survey of authors on the Sloan Digital Sky Survey paper suggest that it might not be exceptional.) In principal, having the personal faculty page as source for basic biographical details is not necessarily a problem.TR 07:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacation nine 03:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm inclined for deletion on this one. A good faith search by me turned up no more independent references that discuss her, other than the ones listed in the article. Those, by the way, are not even about her, so it's a stretch to call that "significant coverage" of the subject (William). I think there's many ways of interpreting the academic notability criteria, and even with the above discussion of impact factors and H-indices, I'm not convinced this subject has had a great enough impact on the field nationally or internationally to warrant an article. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:PROF. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:09, 4 December 2012 (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.