Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline H 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   delete. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Caroline H Thompson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable fringe science author. No reliable secondary sources. Tim Shuba (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment With regrets actually, I spent a long time trying to search for some credible secondary sources. I did find an article suggesting that she influenced Dan Brown's Angels and demon's however, her blog (on her website) does state that she did have dealings with dan brown but does add some confusion to this. Her paper The Chaotic Ball: an intuitive analogy for EPR experiments pub in 1996 seems to find itself continuously referenced though and influencing other papers and books, including some wiki articles actually (16 citations with as new as 2009). However 16 citations isnt that large of a number but it may be an indication if someone mangaes to dig up something further or can improve the article accordingly to show the impact properly in the article. I cant myself analyze the impact fully as my expertise isnt in that type of physics. Im very open to re evaluating my view of deletion but my searches did not come up with anything much beyond those limited citations in other papers and the one newspaper clipping.Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. At Google Scholar, one of her articles has been cited 16 times, and all the rest have fewer than 10 citations. The article touts her "noted contribution to physics", but from the small number of citations to her work, it appears that her impact on the field was minimal at best. --MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am not sure what to say about this. With an h index of 4 she does not satisfy any of WP:Prof for mainstream physics. She follows in the great tradition of English eccentrics and shows more self-insight, at least outside her subject, than many fringers. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:27, 2 August 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.