Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica Frank


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Erica Frank

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No real notability, fails WP:GNG, references to her on the web are largely primary sources and M.D. listings or faculty listings. References in the article are primary, unrelated to her professionally, a wedding announcement, and one dead link. Article seems to be written from WP:COI, to boot. Lots of puffery and bloat, nothing that makes the article subject notable or encyclopedia worthy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep She clearly passes WP:ACADEMIC on a number of counts. For some examples, look at the following criteria: 1) her research has made a big impact 2) she has received several prestigious awards from national bodies 5) she holds a university research chair 8) she was co-editor chief of Preventive Medicine from 1994 to 1999. Yes, the references need some work but even from the current sources available, her notability is very clearly established. Drchriswilliams (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Canada Research Chair is enough for WP:PROF and enough to convince me that she has been found notable by a body with access to much more detailed information about Frank's contributions than we have. Her top Google scholar citation count is 1276 and she has 14 pubs with over 100 citations each, enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF. And Drchriswilliams makes a strong case for #C8 as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PROF as outlined above. PianoDan (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. 'The Lancet' offers plenty of primary sources to confirm her notability. Toffanin (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2015 (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.