Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corinna Löckenhoff


 * 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. Several delete comments were struck due to sockpuppetry. Several other delete comments were withdrawn following improvements to the article and the withdrawal of the subject's request to delete. A few more were not withdrawn, but are clearly based at least partly on the subject's former request. The significant majority ultimately found sufficient indications of notability, and no reason to delete once the subject was no longer requesting it. RL0919 (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Corinna Löckenhoff

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article subject has requested the page be deleted - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Corinna_L%C3%B6ckenhoff

Policy on deletion requests from subjects is at WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete."

The subject arguably notes that she is not notable in Wikipedia terms. I will AGF and support her view in this with this AfD. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tagishsimon (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The subject is notable per WP:Academics #3. The subject can say whatever. If this article will be deleted, I will assume that you are no longer a Wikipedian and will recreate it per above guideline. ;)--Biografer (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC) blocked sock


 * Yeah. Cheers for the passive aggressive abuse, Biografer, but please, really, don't be an idiot. If the article is deleted as a result of this deletion discussion, you will not recreate it because those are the rules. Nor do you get to decide who is and who is not a Wikipedian.


 * So let's look at WP:Academics # 3: "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective..." blah blah blah. Did you stop to look at the criteria for fellowships of the Gerontological Society of America? Probably not. Here it is: https://www.geron.org/images/gsa/Fellows/2020_Code_of_Procedures_and_Requirements_for_Fellow_Status.pdf


 * By my reading, it does not appear "highly selective". There are criteria, but those criteria fail to meet what I take to be "highly". YMMV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's always tough to judge these things, but FWIW, I agree: the criteria are "selective" but not "highly selective". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete mid-career scientist (currently an associate professor). Only aspect of WP:PROF that might be met is #3, "an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society"; but fellowship in the Gerontological Society of America is much less selective than the examples given in the WP:PROF #3 critera. Deletion nomination resulted from my post at WIR, and I gotta say it's really shitty that Wikipedia is making somebody navigate through the bureaucracy of blocks and edit requests to deal with their own biography. Plantdrew (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC) Weak keep I suppose PROF #1 may be met (but PROF #3 certainly is not; GSA is not selective). Plantdrew (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Relatively unknown and non-public figure, any keep argument would rely on a particularly broad interpretation of WP:ACADEMICS, and a subject who wishes for it to be deleted due to ongoing BLP issues. Not only should the article be deleted, but Biografer should be warned/sanctioned for the above threat to ignore the AfD and recreate it regardless of the outcome and Spintendo talked to about his pointlessly obstinate response to the subject asking for inaccurate details in her biography to be corrected. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC) Weak keep per subject's changed request on this page. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I know that you want to punish me for whatever I said above, but let me rephrase it. The subject, about whom I don't really care, said (or at least I read it that way) that she is up for "promotion", meaning possibly an associate to professor. That means, that when she will become one, I will recreate this article. Besides, by that time her h-index might be even more higher on GS. :)--Biografer (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The current AfD is focused on deletion of a subject because of the subjects' personal COI with it. I will be happy to address the inaccuracies, but deleting it because the subject wants it is a no-no. We have many stubs on Fellows of IEEE, but we don't go and delete them, we expand on them!--Biografer (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The current AfD is predicted on the non-notability - in Wikipedia terms - of the subject. Your #3 has been blown out of the water. You got anything more? --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The subject meets WP:GNG, so its far from non-notable.--Biografer (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And so you'll be wanting to adduce some evidence of that GNG. On you go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Two profiles of her on the websites of organisations she's affiliated with and four articles on her in the campus newspaper of the university she works at does not pass WP:GNG in any sense. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And equating Fellow of the IEEE with Fellow of the GSA kinda underscores your complete lack of understanding of #3, Biografer. Can you tease out the 'highly' part of their selectivity for us? --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe its you all who need to rewrite the #3 guideline? You see, to me a Fellow is a Fellow, and #3 guidelines specifically for members and fellows. Maybe you need to create a list of acceptable and not acceptable fellowships? Will be of great help here. :)--Biografer (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Google have many hits for her in the "news" section.--Biografer (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So let me guess, we have an article here on David Eppstein, so if will want his article to be deleted, we will need to bow down and just do it because of "subject request". Really?--Biografer (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As a Wikipedian, my attitude is that the article on me is Someone Else's Problem. I might take action for serious inaccuracies or occasionally suggest updates for things like changes of job title, but otherwise I'm keeping my opinions about it to myself. I wish more of our subjects would take that attitude. But since they often don't, we allow subjects to request deletion as an outlet when the case is sufficiently borderline. The question at hand is not whether we must always bow to such demands, but whether Löckenhoff is sufficiently borderline for her opinion to carry any weight. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete at request of subject. She does have a good GS citation record in the high-cited field of pop-psychology but otherwise of routine notability. WP:Prof is not passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC).
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. She's on the edge of being notable, but not yet. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. A decent citation record (13 papers with over 100 citations each), and being listed as a fellow by a minor learned society, would normally be enough for a keep for me. I think she does pass WP:PROF, by multiple criteria. But the case is not overwhelming enough for me to want to ignore the subject's wishes. The article is a near-orphan, so I don't think it would do much damage to the encyclopedia to delete it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So, on one hand you say that she meets WP:PROF, and on the other hand you are OK with it being deleted??? Can you explain your logic here? As for an article being near-orphan, I see no reason for it being deleted based on that observation. We have hundreds of orphaned articles here, which I currently try to expand (and hopefully connect to others). If you decided to delete this article based on being an orphan, you should take into consideration that many Fellows of the IEEE are also orphans, and yet, no admin and no subject issues AfD debate. :)--Biografer (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC) blocked sock
 * What's to explain? She meets PROF, but is neither so far beyond that level that it would be an embarrassment to the encyclopedia to omit her, nor so well-linked that it would reduce the information content of the other articles on the encyclopedia to unlink her. Therefore, my default in the absence of a request from the subject would be a keep, but I think it's a case where we can honor that request without much cost. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as above per the change of heart from the subject, below. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, but Meh. See the talk page for the actual request from the subject, which doesn't so much say "please delete", so much as "please fix up, or otherwise delete".  Independently from that post, I think this is a weak keep.  Depending how you read the request from the subject, it either turns into a weak delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, or else stays keep (and we fix any errors, add links to primary sources, and explain to the subject why we need to keep the secondary sources).  I lean towards the second, but the first is less work. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the weak keep is via WP:NPROF. 4500+ total citations, several papers over 300 citations looks like C1. Possibly also a case for C3 via Gerontological Society fellowship. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Subject prefers deletion; User talk:Loeckenhoff Plantdrew (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep -- on condition inaccuracies are corrected as suggested above. If not, maintain as a draft until corrections can be made. More extensive comments on Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm with Ipigott on this - restore the changes that were requested by the subject on the grounds that accuracy is important. I think it's borderline enough to be deleted but draftified but again only with the changes made. If we are going to write biographies of borderline notable people we should at least get the details right since they will not have as many sources to be correcting them in a brief google by a user of the 'pedia.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 11:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-public figure, where the subject has requested deletion. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This revert on the basis of COI reintroduced multiple factual errors. The first two I noticed were that the subject's affiliation is now listed incorrectly, and a co-edited book has become a co-authored one. I dislike COI edits as much as anybody, but this is a case where the subject made changes in good faith and provided citations (e.g., ). This is definitely a situation where more consideration is required, and blindly following default procedure makes things worse. I have refactored the "Career" section to make it focus on the standard topics of an academic biography rather than reporting individual grants. This was not a major time investment on my part, and I wouldn't regret it if we decide to follow Dr. Löckenhoff's first choice and delete the page. I think there's a good argument made in the !votes above to the effect that, while she may clear the bar set by our notability guideline for academics, her wiki-notability is not so overwhelming that it should mean we override her request. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that people who voted Delete here, had a substantial lack of why she is notable, before I pinged David Eppstein here. In my book, she passes C1 (GS h-index 33) and C3 (being a Fellow of the Gerontological Society of America) for WP:PROF. She also passes WP:GNG with additional sources which were added by the subject. Let me explain how I came to writing an article on the subject; I was writing an article on her co-author Anthony Ong who has an h-index of 41 on GS. Despite being highly cited, I found very small proof on the net regarding his notability, yet I managed to write a Start class article out of Corinna Löckenhoff. The thing is, is that if we will blindly follow subjects' wishes, we can say WP:BLP bye-bye.--Biografer (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a fatuous conclusion. Policy in this area is to permit the deletion in a case where there is not consensus as to notability. Where there is consensus, the deletion does not take place. Appliction of the policy does not cause BLP to disappear, but rather provides guidance on a fairly thin margin. The problem for you here is that you have not got anything like consensus to keep, and you're still making dubious arguments, such as for the fellowship as an indicator of notabilty via #3, despite users pointing to the criteria requiring a highly selective process. You've been asked about evidence for GNG, and we still have nothing from you to rebut The Drover's Wife's comments. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I already gave this link above: Google have many hits for her in the "news" section. It was meant to answer the GNG criteria.--Biografer (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Dumping a search-engine query is, by itself, not too helpful. Moreover, there are only 10 items returned in that Google News search, which is not a promising beginning. The first is a standard university PR item from her employer, so it's not independent. The second quotes her as the standard "according to a researcher who was not involved in the study" opinion. It's not about her or her own work. The third is just an echo of the second. The fourth is a Forbes "contributor" item, and these are generally seen as not reliable; it only mentions her in passing anyway, as a then-graduate student carrying out research started by someone else. The fifth is a passing mention in a press release about somebody else's research. The remainder aren't in English; four are churnalistic echoes of the second item, and the final one is paywalled so I can't evaluate it. Nothing here adds up to a pass of WP:GNG or WP:PROF. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know Spanish, but we never delete articles because they use foreign sources, that is, as long as they are not written in language other then English, which this article is.--Biografer (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that they were worthless because they're in a foreign language. I said that they don't contribute to passing WP:GNG or any other notability guideline because they're superficial churning of a superficial original. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * We're not "blindly follow[ing] subjects' wishes"; we're debating the removal of potentially misleading content about an individual in a situation where omitting that individual's biography from Wikipedia would not even seriously affect our ability to write about the subject area where she works. Wiki-notability is about whether a subject can in principle have a Wikipedia article, which is not the same as whether they must have an article. Yes, a GS h-index of 33 is pretty good, but that's only one factor in our considerations, and as noted above, whether Fellowship in the Gerontological Society of America is enough for WP:PROF is not so clear-cut. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't &mdash; I don't think that specific society has actually come up in any notability debate so far, meaning that the question simply hasn't been settled yet. Nor am I convinced that the additional sources really make a WP:GNG case for wiki-notability: for example, a press release from the subject's own institution is a primary source. We can take it as accurate, but it doesn't really represent the wider world paying attention. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Fellowship enlists 1564 members as of 2019. We also have a category: Category:Fellows of the Gerontological Society of America since 2017.--Biografer (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's actually a good argument against regarding Fellowship as being "highly selective", since they have less than 6000 members in all. (According to our page about them, which is surely not too out of date.) Contrast this, with, say, the American Physical Society, in which "Each year, no more than one half of one percent of the Society's membership" is elected to Fellow status . Having a category is beside the point; we have Category:American physicists, a person isn't automatically notable for being an American physicist. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I used to write here articles on Fellows of the American College of Surgeons, until somebody told me that those academics are not notable either, despite have a whopping 80,000 members. That leads me into a confusion of some sort: If a Fellow of Gerontological Society of America is less notable then a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons, then what is considered a WP:PROF #3 pass? Like, obviously, various Academy of Sciences, or the AAAS, but are there notable societies for physicians? If an academic is fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics he seems to be a notable pediatrician.--Biografer (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not the size of the society that matters, but how selective the criteria for being a Fellow are. The requirements for becoming a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics seem rather low: FAAP designation after a member's name stands for Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics and may only be used by AAP members in good standing who have obtained initial board certification in pediatrics or a surgical specialty board . Their press material suggests that about 34,000 out of 60,000 AAP members are Fellows &mdash; more than half. That's not "highly selective" by any stretch of the imagination. And it's nothing like what WP:PROF is about. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Meantime, the Gerontological Society of America have 5064 fellows and IEEE have 5364 fellows. But while IEEE selection in Wikipedia is "high", the selection for the Gerontological Society of America is "low" according to Wikipedia. Maybe you can explain why 300 more members of IEEE are more notable then 5K of the Gerontological Society of America? To me, I don't see a difference between 5K and 5K plus.--Biografer (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1564 Fellows / about 5500 members ≈ 28%. 5786 Fellows / 422,460 members ≈ 1.4%. There's no contest. IEEE Fellowship is more selective. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing is, is that this article was to no-ones attention until the subject peeped out of nowhere and now we need to abide by her wishes. If she was not notable at the time of the writing, then maybe she should have been deleted by an admin before this debate. As it stands, we have subject that is deemed notable by and  (and me, as creator), and we have like three to four people here who apparently felt sorry for the subject (or maybe fell in love with her, because geez, a lady coming to WP makes us men blush). :) Just my theory, don't take it personally.--Biografer (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem attacks are always a sure sign of a winning argument. Please don't project your sexist crap on us. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is tautologically true that nobody noticed a problem until someone came along and noticed the problem. The person who noticed happened to be the subject of the article. Nobody is saying that "we need to abide by her wishes". The argument of those supporting deletion is that it is a simple solution and we have no truly compelling reason not to do it. Feeling "sorry" doesn't enter into the considerations at all. And I'm sorry to be blunt, but bizarre personal insinuations are inappropriate even if dressed up with a smiley and a "don't take it personally". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't meant any personal attacks, but that's how it was seem to me at the time. :(--Biografer (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So notability is not important now, simplicity is? Wow. It would be better to improve the article rather than delete it. Makes me wonder why do I bother to expand on those stubs on IEEE Fellows, knowing that in a near future, you guys will nominate them for deletion because it will be a "simple thing to do".--Biografer (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Where have I ever said that notability is "not important"? If I thought so, why would I have put in the time to evaluate the cases for WP:PROF (probable fail, since we have no grounds to say that Fellowship is "highly selective") and WP:GNG (also a probable fail, since the available sources are a mix of superficial and/or not independent)? And what is the relevance of stubs for IEEE Fellows, since again, all the evidence we can find indicates that Fellowship in the IEEE and in the GSA are simply not equally selective? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * While you didn't say it, you did said that The argument of those supporting deletion is that it is a simple solution and we have no truly compelling reason not to do it, which indicates that you support simplicity of deletion, like, it will cause less headache, over fixing the factual errors and let the article be.--Biografer (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As for IEEE Fellows relevance, if you consider to delete an article because of simplicity, then maybe you want to delete a ton of IEEE stubs and not waste your time on expanding them? But trust me, I put an effort on expanding them, even though for simplicity reason, it will better to just delete them. :)--Biografer (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

*Delete Currently I don't feel they pass NACADEMIC (under the several criteria mooted, the specific reasoning is considered above). I don't know what scale of promotion the subject is going for, which they mentioned on the talk page, but it's possible that would move them into notable grounds. However, that decision can be made if and when that's appropriate. As the non-public subject has requested deletion, it needs to be a clear keep on notability grounds to retain. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable yet. Also, the person in question has requested deletion.--Darwinek (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The person is notable and meets C1 and C3 of WP:PROF. Weather the subject likes it or not, we should retain this article for its encyclopedic value. We should never bow to the wishes of a subject. We need to fix the article and tell the subject "sorry, good bye". If she wants to sue us, we will gladly pay her some hush money to keep her happy. An article on a notable academic should never be deleted just because the subject said so.--Biografer (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC) blocked sock


 * Confused. You are proposing a deletion and at the same time you are saying that it needs to be a clear keep on notability grounds to retain? In other words, you are voting Keep if I am not mistaken?--Biografer (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - no, "it needs" in the sense that the consensus has to be for a Keep, or it should be deleted (i.e. in BLPDELETEs, "no consensuses" default to delete) Nosebagbear (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak delete The available sources don't support a pass of the general notability guideline. As far as the specialized scholars-and-academics guideline goes, WP:PROF is inapplicable, because we have no evidence indicating that Fellowship in the GSoA is the kind of "highly selective" honor that WP:PROF is talking about. The point of WP:PROF is to rely upon an academic community's judgment in recognizing lifetime achievement. It's a "top 1% of the field" kind of criterion, not an "above the median" one. There's a decent case for WP:PROF just by the numbers, but we do have to look beyond the numbers unless we just want Google's algorithm to make all our decisions for us. Keeping an article based solely on the h-index when there's a dearth of sources to write the article with is poor form. In the absence of a deletion request from the subject, I might incline to a weak keep (weak because reliance on a citation profile alone is unsatisfying). But as the matter stands, I see no grounds to argue that it's in the public interest to override that request. As said above, her professional renown is not so great that it would be an embarrassment to the encyclopedia to omit her, nor so well-linked that it would reduce the information content of the other articles on the encyclopedia to unlink her. I'd be willing to reconsider if the subject unambiguously withdraws her deletion request (I don't want to get into close reading and hair-splitting, thank you very much!). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I said that I'd reconsider if the subject unambiguously withdraws her deletion request. She has now done so. Consequently, that's no longer a factor. I still think everything else I wrote above applies: decent case for WP:PROF just by citation numbers, but not great sourcing to actually base an article on, and WP:PROF not really coming into play. So, my re-evaluation lands me where I hypothesized that it would were the situation different, because now the situation has changed. (, thanks for pinging me. In turn, I will ping and, who have "per XOR" in their comments below.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, basically per and, but the presence or absence of incoming links doesn't matter much to me, given that our coverage is inevitably uneven and subject to change (plus the presence or absence in an article of templates such as footers from which many articles are linked distorts results). More importantly, there is little independent coverage of her career, so since she has herself requested deletion, the principle of respect for living people makes deletion preferable at this time. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. (Ping doesn't seem to have worked, but I saw the change before leaving for work and now have a little time to be online.) Like others, deferring to the subject's changed request, and also to those with expertise in evaluating citation counts. I would still be a lot happier if it were possible for the article to include some biographical details, such as year of tenure, city in which she finished secondary school, whether the Cornell Medical appointment was the same year as the Ithaca campus appointment and if not, when. IMO the cv would be sufficient to cite these, but possibly there's a Cornell announcement including some such details? (And congrats on the promotion!) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * delete per XOR and David E. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - also per XOR and David E. Note that the author has been blocked following an SPI; if not for the edits by others, this would be a G5. – Levivich 22:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: +WP:HEY, –WP:BLPREQDEL. – Levivich  06:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. on the basis of being an authority in her field, as shown by the citation record of her papers.  The importance of somebodys work is measured by their hgihest-cited papers, because the most cited work is by definition the most influential--that's what influence in science eans. H-index is not intended to show it--it works to distinguish those who have done vey little from those who have done an average amount of work, but it fails to measure beyond average, and that's the range where notability is relevant. Her h-index is 33 (using the google scholar figures): in her cas ththis mean papers with citation levels of 499, 348, 330, 327, 271....   with a number of different co-authors. This is very different from someone who hmight have a h index of 33, with it representing citation of 33 papes all with between 33 and 40 citations--that person would never have done any highly influential work, do matter how many middle level papers they publish. , you are arguing here very differently han you usually do, because normally we agree on the signifcance of the highly cited work. You said above "(13 papers with over 100 citations each)" is not significant. In the past, you;ve usually said that 2 or more with over 100 is sufficient. And here it's not as if there were 13 papers with betwene 100 and 150 citations, but 4 with over 300, which is a very high level indeed. Some of her work has been highly influenctial. At this level I don't think its borderline, and we only consider requests when it is borderline.
 * There are two contradictory principles: NPOV, and BLP. The only real BLP problem is the description of thesubject's research, where the preferred description was in somewhat more detail than is customary; since the subject objected to the previously written description, the recourse is, as was mentioned earlier, to give just the basic information. We need to be objetive in coverage.  I do not see the realism of potential harm, for the posible effect of this discussion would be to my mind equally possible of misinterpretation     DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As the subject of the article in question I withdraw my deletion request. I initially requested deletion since it seemed the easiest way to remove the inaccurate information in he article, but by now I have spent so much time on this back and forth (and the entry finally looks good) that I would hate to see that work go down the drain. In case it helps, I'll be a full professor in a couple of months :-)

Loeckenhoff (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, my !vote was "per" and, both of whom mentioned the subject's keep/delete request in their !vote rationale. So... what do you two think now? (I don't like having to think for myself, so I'm just going to do what they do.) – Levivich  04:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * One more thing, if you do keep it, please block Biografer from making further edits to it. They seem to be a bit biased at this point. Loeckenhoff (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's already been done. Biografer is the "blocked sock" referenced in the collapsed sections above; they've been indefinitely blocked from making any edits to any page on Wikipedia. You can click on the "sockpuppet investigations" link above (and WP:SOCK) for more info. Turns out Biografer had a previous account that had been blocked (for similar issues), and the Biografer account was an unauthorized alternate account. You're also not the only person who has raised issues about biography articles written about them by the Biografer account. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of article creations over the past few years, and a review/cleanup is underway. Thank you, by the way, for bringing this to the community's attention; who knows how much longer they'd have flown under the radar otherwise. Sorry you've had a rough introduction here and... welcome to Wikipedia :-) – Levivich 04:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, per the changes made to the article since the start of this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Loeckenhoff. ——  SN  54129  05:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: notable and has withdrawn objection. Pam  D  08:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability now established, and subject has withdrawn objection. Edwardx (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable by citation record for WP:NACADEMIC. No subject objection. — MarkH21talk 11:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - With the blitz of changed !votes (and the subject's change now that the article has been improved, which is good to see regardless of this AfD), I've had another major read through. Most of the ACADEMIC criteria still aren't met, though the sufficient position one might be in a few months. However, the citation count has been considered above. It's one of my least favourite notability criteria because it's really hard to calculate and then still hard to assess. Still, there certainly is a case to be made, and some individuals who know it better and whose opinions I trust feel it is met. It's not a clear-cut example of such, but I am now leaning Keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability is shown both by the reference from the Association for Psychological Science, and by her election as a fellow of the Gerontological Society of America. Toddy1 (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per others; h-index and citation count pass PROF criterion 1 and the subject no longer has concerns; great turnaround. Pet peeve, but it would be helpful if some experienced editors in this discussion read MOS:LISTGAP for future reference.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  19:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for now per the good work of editors who came before me. Notability now established in my opinion. Much discussion on her fellowship here. Wm335td (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per the improvements to the article that have been made since this AfD was first opened. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2020 (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.