Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Purdom


 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Georgia Purdom

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I believe this biography fails WP:PROF. Precedent includes Articles for deletion/Jason Lisle. In short, being a PhD hired by a creationist company doesn't confer notability upon an academic. Rather, we need to see substantial contribution or mention in third-party sources. I don't see either of that. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nom is exactly correct: This article has precisely the same problem as the now-deleted one for Jason Lisle. In short, this person has a PhD and makes her living under that title ("Following graduation, Dr. Purdom served as a professor of biology for six years at Mount Vernon Nazarene University in Ohio" is reported on her official website). However, WoS shows an h-index of 3 on papers that her advisor appears to be the primary author of – clear fail of WP:PROF. Conversely, she is not a prominent or well-known spokesperson for the Creationism movement either. Such individuals must be notable on their own either as scientists or creationists to merit an article here, but Purdom is neither. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete. I think this line from WP:FRINGE applies as well to fringe theorists as it does to fringe theories: "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." The Columbus Dispatch piece is the best we have, but its coverage specific to her is not extensive, and we don't have the multiple reliable sources needed for an argument based on WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete insufficient notable publications to warrant keeping. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2010 (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.