Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Roskams


 * 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) 02:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Jane_Roskams
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't think Jane Roskams reaches the notability guidelines for academics. The only criteria that she might meet is criteria 1: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." But here, there aren't independent reliable sources to verify that this is the case. The source for most of her lab's research findings is her lab's website which isn't independent. Achapman2009 (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 05:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 05:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even if we aren't accepting her citation record as proof of her impact/coverage in independent reliable sources (as we seemed to in the previous deletion discussion), I was able to pretty easily find some independent sources describing her work. I think we should be in good shape now. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. The previous AfD showed almost 2K citations and it handily exceeds that mark now. I think we're all growing tired of noms not understanding that citations are independent demonstration of notability and, even if there is not a single non-science or bio source, publications are still sufficient WP:RS to support basic statements regarding employment, areas of scientific interest/accomplishment, etc. This AfD is a waste of time and certain to be closed as "keep". Would be good form for nom to withdraw it. Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC).
 * Keep, enough highly-cited publications for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 16 December 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.