Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Ann Nalley


 * 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   speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW. Consensus is abundantly clear. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Ann Nalley

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The only claim to notability is that E Nally was once a president of the American Chemical Society (ACS). It is not sufficient as most of the ACS presidents do not have Wikipedia articles, see. She is not notable as a scientist. According to her webpage she is an author of only five peer-reviewed publications. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Other ACS presidents not having Wikipedia articles is irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Gruntler (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is relevant as a part of the argument, see WP:OTHERSTUFF: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —John Z (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Very few number of GS hits and no cites seems odd. Personal web page is not accessible now. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep. Passes WP:PROF on two counts: her presidency of the ACS, which is a "major highest-level elected or appointed academic post" in a "major academic society" (WP:PROF, point #6), and the fact that she's also a recipient of a Henry Hill award from the ACS, which I think is sufficiently major to count under WP:PROF point #2. Looking at her CV, the low number of publications/citations appear to be due to the fact that she's worked as a professor primarily on teaching, and on service to the academic community, rather than focussing on research. Scog (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First. The Henry Hill award is not a major award. It is given by the ACS division of Professional Relations to those "who have served the profession in the area of professional relations in a unique and distinguished manner". It sounds to me like this is the award ACS bureaucrats give to themselves. She became the ACS president moving slowly along the bureaucratic ladder, being a member of multiple committees and subcommittees over decades. Second, WP:PROF is a guideline and not an inviolable law. I presume that the guys who wrote it could not have imagined that somebody so utterly undistinguished, with only 6 publications, was the president of a major society. However, ACS often tends to select non-notable insiders for their post of the president, see their list We should apply some common sense here. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Being the president of a national level professiona lsociety, especially one as important as that, is undoubted notability according to WP:PROF. "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.", Nothing else need be or should be considered. It's like saying, yes she was a member of the House of Representatives, but she didn't ought to have been elected.   That many other presidents don't have articles is something that must be corrected. One would do better to write them than to try to remove ones that have been written. That we are so weak in this area is to our great discredit.   DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:PROF leaves no choice in the matter, given her presidency of the ACS. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I find WP:PROF #6 persuasive; since that criterion is not about research impact (that's #1), it's irrelevant that her research doesn't seem to have had much impact. And there's plenty of reliable sourcing for a biography on her; I added some to the article. By the way, searching for "E. Ann Nalley" seems to work better than other permutations of her name. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with DGG. She is clearly notable and we do need more articles on the people who have been Presidents of the ACS and other bodies such as the Royal Society of Chemistry. -- Bduke    (Discussion)  23:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Scog and others. LotLE × talk  01:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PROF #6. ChemGardener (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep. As  DGG correctly observes, presidency of the American Chemical Society, the main professional organization for chemistry, is sufficient all by its little self to pass WP:PROF. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2009 (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.