Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet E. Marsh


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Janet E. Marsh

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Likely result of a Cut and Paste move. See this AN/I post for details. I can't find the original draft article. My search for sourcing indicates that the subject is not likely to pass WP:PROF. Protonk (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —John Z (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems to be far from notable. McMarcoP (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * YANQ : No, I'm not suggesting to yank this, Yet Another Notability Question. On reading this, I don't know how we can tell if this is a stub or lacking in notability. Continuing to distinguish "obscure from notable" it is entirely possible that person is reasonably well known in a field, enough to meet wikpedia criteria, but we have no easy way to tell. Search links or something similar, even if not specific enough for the article, would let us determine if this is obscure yet notable and we just don't know where to look but could find this useful in an encyclopedia someday. At some point, the notability burden falls on people who want inclusion but it can be a waste to delete stubs that may provoke later fill-in. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just skimming to provided book hits on the provided "find sources" link however, I would think that notability could be established. I don't know anything about these articles on there are several of them that look credible. I guess if she is cited at all on scholar I would have to vote for keep. Given the likely size of the community any hits are suggestive. While I think the criteria is something about outside of local area and field I would have to go through man of these and conclude each is uncited before dismissing notability likelihood. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's taken from Wikispecies; she's listed as a Taxon Authority, which I guess counts for notability. However, this version of the article is ... not good. DS (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ( trying to recover from edit conflict ) For example,

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=janet+marsh+lichen+usgs&aq=f&oq=&aqi= suggests notability even if obscure. You see her mentioned ( ok, in passing but hold on a minute) in diverse areas like this, http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc1995/pdf/1133.pdf suggesting she is a known "go to" person for certain topics. While she is mentioned in one line, clearly the authors noted her contribution to a larger work. "Marsh" or course could turn up swamp land and many important hits won't mention Janet. This ( again a one-line mention ) isn't CNN but it isn't a COI or author either AFAIK,

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/projects/air-resource-mgmt-plan/ArmPlan_09_Appendix_A_historic.pdf

one of her books was mentioned on a course syllabus, maybe there is more in searches like this,

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=janet+marsh+lichen+biography&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

I'm not sure yet if notability can be met but again I'm trying to define this notion of a topic which is obscure but notable and encyclopedic. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable enough for Wikipedia .Dr. Szląchski (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, what. You created this article.  Where did it come from, in case it is kept.  I need to know for copyright purposes. Protonk (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said: he grabbed it from a Wikispecies page; she was listed as a taxon authority. I explained to him that simply grabbing TA entries from WS and dumping them into WP, with only the slightest modification for grammar, is not the done thing; he appears to have taken that to heart. Perhaps we should have an article on Janet Marsh, perhaps not... but we shouldn't have that as an article on Janet Marsh. DS (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Question is this the same Janet Marsh who wrote the 1980 book "Nature Diary"? If so, there appears to be more than a little notability: . The word "lichen" turns up in the book (not a common word), which is why I am asking after this. Thanks. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * weak keep could be strong keep if it was a better article, but from scholar and google searches it appears to me that this person has notability as an author of a major reference work which has sold sufficient copies for inclusion. --Buridan (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Only three of her publications that show up on Google Scholar have a positive number of citations. WP:PROF does not seem to be satisfied. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep it is not reasonable to expect that publications on taxonomy of relative little-worked on groups will show up prominently in G Scholar. Someone's acceptance as authority has to be judged by the standards of their subject. `   DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete workaday scientist. The Nature Diary Janet Marsh is from England. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:06, 2 September 2009 (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.