Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimber W. Malmgren


 * 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Kimber W. Malmgren

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Associate professor at University of Wisconsin. Unreferenced, no claims of notability, fails WP:PROF. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 19:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   —David Eppstein 19:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - does have a few papers in conjunction with other researchers, but doesn't appear to have made a large impact on her field at this time. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete 14 publication on Google Scholar. These articles show the problems with COI--the person who inserted them is a PR guy at the School. I've tried to explain to him previously two times on his page that articles need to show accomplishments with references, not vague statements like this. When these were nom. earlier today, I left a third statement. I even sent him an email, which he acknowledged. But he hasn't done anything. COI can lead to unsatisfactory articles in many ways, such as omitting what important stuff there might be. As 14 articles is at best borderline, Im not inspired to look further. DGG (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Associate professor, no awards, 20 or so papers from her CV, a few moderately cited per Google Scholar, doesn't quite seem enough to meet WP:PROF. Happy to change my mind if someone uncovers anything relevant, but with so many up at once there isn't much time to dig around... Espresso Addict 03:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:PROF. Edison 18:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I know, WP:WAX, but her case seems noticably weaker than that of Mitchell J. Nathan, a professor of the same rank in a similar research area at the same institution also up for AfD: fewer pubs (20 vs 30), many fewer citations (11 for the best vs 95), no grant mentioned. I didn't think Nathan's case showed anything exceptional that would make it noteworthy and the same goes double here. —David Eppstein 07:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per above. Bearian 23:06, 28 July 2007 (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.