Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Rudkin


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Kathy Rudkin

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable, per WP:N and WP:CREATIVE. Almost all sources are self-published. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 15:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also per WP:PROF --SquidSK (1MC•log) 15:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

this site states: The papers published in the series have undergone a process of peer review.
 *  Weak Keep Delete this paper is listed as part of a "working Paper Series" which often means not peer-viewed. However,

This paper falls into the same category. Oddly, neither is included in the article (unless I'm missing them). The article does require work, several of the links are directly to papers, without indicating who published them, when or where. I realize if the reader wants to find them, a direct link works, but it is useful to the reader, and critical to the reviewer, to understand whether the papers are peer-reviewed. In addition, important claims in the lede are not backed by references, but this is not an argument for deletion, rather an argument for better editing. As implied, adding these apparently peer-reviewed papers is important.

One of the included references is published online by Elsevier, one of the most respected publishers. It used to be assumed that such a publication implied peer-review, but I haven't stayed on top of the online outlets for such publishers, so I don't know for sure. At least one other paper is in the same category, so if peer-reviewed, it would help tip the scales in favor of this article.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree that the person has had papers published in respected journals. Can you please let me know which criteria of WP:PROF this achievement alone satisfies?  The only one that I can imagine you're aluding to is criterion 1, but that would require evidence that her published work has been highly cited by others.  --SquidSK (1MC•log) 17:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I was assuming that multiple peer-reviewed publications would be sufficient for Notability; I hadn't read WP:PROF specifically, after reviewing criterion 1 I agree that she doesn't pass.-- SPhilbrick  T  21:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, the various searches suggest she does not meet WP:PROF or any other guideline. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Her published papers do not have unusually high number of citations. Does not meet WP:PROF. Pburka (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. GS gives a grand total of 2 cites. Many hundreds of cites are normally required to pass WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete it is safe to assume in the absence of very strong evidence that the papers published by a master's student are unlikely to be significant enough in the field to meet any interpretation of WP:PROF, & thecitation data bears this out. Critical Perspectives in Accounting is a long standing journal originally published by Academic Press, which Elsevier later bought; the AP journal list, though smaller, was much more distinguished than Elsevier's list at the time. But one paper in even a very good journal is not notability .    DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have edited the page to remove the weakly referred to working papers, and in the main body (top) of the page I have included the main points of her thesis around Education with an external reference to a paper which cites her work. I'm sorry that the process has taken so long. Even though I read the information about the creation of pages, and thought I had followed rules, it's obvious I haven't. I think all of the concerns are addressed now, and the main 3 important papers are the only ones that are included with external references. (Xmlgod (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Delete. WoS shows not a single hit using the loosest query (author = Rudkin K*), basically confirming what Xxanthippe found using GS – essentially no impact. Claims in the article such as "She is a leading researcher in the fields of Accounting and Education" seem to be gross overstatements. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC).
 * I'm not sure how complete WoS is when it comes to accounting. I can't find anything from Luca Pacioli when I look on the pulic search site for WoS, but I might not have the same access as you. (Xmlgod (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Point taken. I know that it covers mainstream journals like Econometrica, et al. – there are >200 journal titles listed under "economics", about 80 under the "business" topic, and >100 in "education". You can browse lists here. My assumption was that a claim of being a "leading researcher" in such areas would imply showing up somewhere in this broad cut of journals. GS seems to return similar results and it generally has a much more liberal inclusivity. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC).
 * This one isn't there . I'll keep looking through others she is cited in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xmlgod (talk • contribs) 00:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A respected but minor academic is honorable, but not notable Vartanza (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC).


 * Thanks for taking the time to consider this. I will spend some time to place the important parts of her research on the Wiki, rather than her own page. This is a much better way for people to find the important information anyway. (Xmlgod (talk) 01:45, 12 January 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.