Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Eskes


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 16:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Gail Eskes

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

Gails's article has been with us for ten years ...and i cannot find a ref pointing to her notability Victuallers (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Canada,  and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: I had to go back through the article's history - apparently, she studies(d?) brain function after a stroke, specifically in relation to fatigue: Feb 1999, Nov 2003, June 2015; and cognitive motor function: Dec 2013. There also seems to be a lot of work on general cognitive function and with children: 1990, July 2005, 2009, 2010, July 2012, Apr 2015 (There are a lot more - 10 pages minimum on Google Scholar.) When I searched her under "news" in Google, I got this paper she was an author on. I got two returns on Internet Archive, both articles she co-authored.
 * There was a lot of material removed from the article as unsourced, but it was inline sourced like an essay (author, year; no title, no URL). It looks like it was all WP:OR.
 * She's an expert in her field for certain, and I did find some articles about her research implementation (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; scanned, didn't do a thorough read through), but that's it. Everything else that returned is all her own material. I'm not finding much on just her. If the article were rewritten to focus on her research, would that be sufficient to keep it? (Would it be BLP then? Would it move to another type of article?) OIM20 (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I'm seeing several articles with hundreds of citations on Google Scholar, including some with the subject as first/last author, in what I believe to be a medium citation field.  I think it is a marginal pass of WP:NPROF. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep due to citation record meeting WP:NACADEMIC-C1. There is also some media coverage of her research, but it's mainly the citations. -- Mvqr (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Biomedicine is one home of big author, big citation papers, but with H41, I think this person pass NPROF. 128.252.154.1 (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC).
 * Keep - Thousands of citations on a few dozen of papers likely passes WP:NPROF. ~Kvng (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PROF. Strong citation record even for a high-citation field. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep with 19 papers that have 100+ citations this should be a clear keep and a testament to an impactful career. --hroest 18:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2023 (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.