Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hope Rugo


 * 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) KCVelaga (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hope Rugo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not satisfy either academic notability or general notability. Being director of a clinical trial program is not in itself notable. Google search shows that she exists and has given interviews, but that is not enough.

An admin moved this page to draft as undersourced, but author has moved it back, so it needs to go to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your definition of needs is, but I think in this case it means that is what you want to do. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning)  talk  01:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning)  talk  01:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Her very high h-index on Google Scholar is enough to pass WP:PROF with flying colors. I suspect that her status as a fellow of the Giannini Foundation may allow her to also pass WP:PROF but I'm not sure, and it doesn't matter as her work is clearly highly cited and influential. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning)  talk  02:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that "fellowshop" is just a grant that funded her postdoc, not the kind of honorary fellowship that academic societies use to recognize people who have gone beyond an ordinary full professorship. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Web of Science gives her h-index as 58 and lists 39 papers as "highly cited". I think this is enough for WP:PROF. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. High citation counts (also on Google Scholar) give a pass of WP:PROF. The article is very stubby but this source (although too close to the subject to contribute towards notability) could be used to expand it. And we don't appear to have a valid deletion rationale in the nomination statement. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2018 (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.