Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Cotter


 * 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. Kevin (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Martha Cotter

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Doesn't meet WP:PROF.  Ja Ga  talk 11:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: ADS finds a number of papers by her, but none of them seem to be particularly highly cited, so I don't think she meets WP:PROF point #1, and none of her other accomplishments seem to qualify her either. One caveat is that  ADS may not be complete when it comes to coverage of physical chemistry and chemical physics (although I'd still trust it over Google Scholar); it would be good if someone with access could check on Web of Knowledge or Scopus. Scog (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep . GS cites are 86, 43, 36 27... h index = 10. Borderline on WP:Prof #1. Invited lecture to Royal Society a plus. The article could do without the bathos of the subject's quotes. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment A search on WoS for ("MA Cotter" AND Rutgers) gives 12 hits, cited a grand total of 338 times. Top cited articles 76, 63, 60, with an h of 8. --Crusio (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The subject has been an academic for about 4 decades and has an h-index of only 8. Seems to be a tenured professor, but does not have a title at the "distinguished" level, endowed chair, etc. Has been in administration, but does not appear to have risen higher than an "interim" (place-holder) position. All of these aspects fall short of their corresponding WP:PROF criteria. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete. Seems to be more of an administrator than a researcher, but clearly not at a high enough level for WP:PROF #6, and the citation count is unimpressive enough that I think she doesn't pass #1 either. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:07, 17 October 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.