Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Ashe


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Karen Ashe

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

notability WP:BIO Alan  -  talk  02:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It has to be shown, but a full professor at a flagship state university like Minnesota will have published enough to be clearly a person notable as an authority in her profession under WP:PROF. And so she has : highest citation counts from WoS 558, 412, 403 -- 65   peer-reviewed papers in all, 12 papers that have been cited more than 100 times, and 23 that have been cited 23 times or more. she's the senior investigator in almost all, and they are most of them in the very best journals possible. In addition,she unquestionably meets one of the provisions of WP:PROF by holding a  named chair,  Edmund Wallace and Anne Marie Tulloch Chairs in Neurology and Neuroscience.    DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:Prof on criteria #1 and #5. However, more references are needed. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. At the moment the article contains insufficient grounds to pronounce notability. Can review decision if expanded. JFW | T@lk  16:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. per Radagast this is a clear pass of WP:PROF #5. It also looks like a pass of #1 — it's a little less clear because the papers on which she's so well-cited have many authors, but in the best-cited of them her name is in the important final position. Google news search turns up sufficiently many independent sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets # 1, 5 FROM WP:PROF. I'm afraid why this '..have many authors..' comes in between the judgements. It is usually efforts from young Ph.D. student - advisors suggest problems, guide and help to correct mistakes. DGG has analyzed it. thx. --kaeiou (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. High GS cites, named chair. Nominator, whose arguments for this AfD are extremly abbreviated and identical to those on other AfD nominations he has created, should concentrate on the doubtful candidates. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Easy Keep. If the Google Scholar results aren't convincing, take a look at the Google News results. Dozens of articles on her discoveries as "lead researcher". Abductive  (reasoning) 04:23, 19 March 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.