Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felice Bedford


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Felice Bedford

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online. Fails WP:GNG and "associate professor emeritus"WP:NACADEMIC. 7 pageviews in 30 days is not encouraging either. Edwardx (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women,  and New York. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Scholar shows significant citation numbers: 211, 166, 160, 105, etc. I don't know what the h-value is, but it's solid. I can't find any newspaper references about court cases, which would very much help establish notability. Lamona (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I find a notice that she testified, but it's a listing of information not an article about a case. DaffodilOcean (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I fail to see a case for WP:NPROF here, while some of her papers from 30 years ago have 100+ citations, that means less than 10 citations / year which is not what I would expect for a NPROF#1 ("The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."). --hroest 17:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence for your "10 citations/year" statement unless you have done a detailed distribution of years of publication and citations. And even so, picking out "some of her papers from 30 years ago" is not representative of her work - she continues to publish. The first 2 pages of G-Scholar results show 18 articles by her with a total of 818 citations. There's no need to make up bogus criteria. Lamona (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. While the citation record would convince me of WP:NPROF C1 in some fields, I believe psychology to be an especially high-citation field, and I don't think the subject's record is remarkable or indicative of high impact there.  No other potential notability is apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails NPROF. Retired associate professor. Most of the references cited are her own papers or her university biography, in other words, primary sources. And some of the claims of significant work are not sourced at all. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2022 (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.