Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristen Gremillion


 * 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   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Kristen Gremillion

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

BLP without any independent reliable sources. May also have COI problems. Does not meet any standards for notability. Is very un-encyclopedic in tone and links to her resume. Basically spam. Drawn Some (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Clearly an article with problems. To play devils advocate here, could an arguement be made that her writings bring her into WP:PROF range?  Not my field so I really don't know if they do or don't.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a full prof. No books. h-index is 8. Highest cited paper; 44. I suspect archeology is a low citation field, but she writes about the domestication of plant crops, which is of interest to plant biologists, yet still not very many citations. Author of article was User:MissKristenL, whose only contribution to Wikipedia is this article. You'd think she would at least have improved our coverage of North American archeology... Joey the Mango (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:PROF and looks like COI. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep archeology is not only a very low citation field, and a field where citations are dispersed over a very wide range of publications--many of them poorly indexed altogether, and where the citations that are made take a very long time coming. I consider the use of h index in the humanities unproven, unreliable, and without any basis. it should be obvious that in all fields where publication is often in books, a citation index value based on journals--no matter how sophisticated --is worthless. WoK (as Science Citation Index) was first developed for molecular biology,  and works increasingly poorly as the subject literature differs from that paradigm.  I judge keep here on the same basis as otherwise in the humanities, the quality of the publications & publishers in which the publication was. I trust specialist reviews and editors more than myself--and certainly more than anyone concentrating their efforts on evaluating articles on scientists based on crude numerology. Echos at a cruder level the worst failings of academic administrators.  Unencyclopedic tone and COI are fixable, as always. They should not be mentioned as reasons for deletion. DGG (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG, you seem to be once again arguing that we can delegate the judging of notability to publishers, that "specialist reviews and editors" determine who is notable on Wikipedia. That simply isn't the case, we have our own standards of notability. Even verifiability is at issue with this article, no independent reliable sources exist.    COI and tone are indeed relevant as this could theoretically be speedied as pure spam. Please give valid references instead of throwing up a long and tangled argument without substance, no one wants to delete material but this is unreferenced BLP. Drawn Some (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * keep seems notable, seems like it needs improvement before we can see whether it is worth of deletion. needing improvement is not a reason for deletion.  how about seeing whether there are verifiable secondary sources.  people don't work in a field this long with this vita and not generate notability somehow. after you try to improve it and fine it completely wanting, then i might vote for a delete.  --Buridan (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be admitting that the subject is not notable but proposing that if the article sits around long enough that the subject may become notable. This discussion is to determine whether or not the subject is notable, not to presume that it is and hope that it may be demonstrated at some point in the future. Drawn Some (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * no what i am saying is that the subject is notable, and if the article was improved the debate would be clear, she would either be decided as notable or not, because it is a consensus of the rule, lots of people who meet or exceed the criteria have been deleted, there is no reason to expect that it won't happen again. however, now though she is notable and we should not delete her just because the article needs improvement.  --19:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then would you please share how you decided that the subject of the article is notable because I would like nothing more to be presented with that evidence so I could withdraw this nomination for deletion. Drawn Some (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * perhaps you should just do your best to improve the article, then you'd know. --Buridan (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to but there was no way to verify the information because independent resources don't exist. This is a biography of a living person, the information must be verifiable.  If you have any sources please share. Drawn Some (talk) 21:39, 9 June 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.