Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Ellen Wohl


 * 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. Hut 8.5 10:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Mary Ellen Wohl

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable hospital administrator. COI violation. Corvus cornix talk  00:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a not notable person. Tavix (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Keep - thanks to some serious work by lquilter and others, the article has clearly established notability. I'd advise changing the lede to emphasize her role as a research scientist rather than an administrator; adding a bit more about her more widely-cited papers; and some general tidying/citing. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  03:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Kannie | talk 03:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * keep Papers with many (e.g. 218,182,97,89,79,77,72,70) citations...not a "hopital administrator", Wohl MEB has an h-index of 21 on ISI, some of her papers seem to be Wohl ME, so the count may be higher than that. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - raw assertions of notability without proper sourcing, linking, etc. leaves the editor unmoved. If she is a research scientist, why does the article describe her as an administrator. What are these papers? Where are the citations? Where are the properly-formatted references for the reader? -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  18:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably because a lot of editors don't know how to write articles. Those things are good reasons to flag an article with warnings & encouragements to fix it, but do not provide a reason to delete for lack of notability. --Lquilter (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * btw -- you said "raw assertions" ; perhaps you missed the ISI reference? In looking at scientists it is typical to look at ISI and see what their citation index is; it's a very good proxy for notability. For biomedical research also one would typically check on PubMed. I just did that and she has around 40 last-author papers, and is on over 80 papers altogether. In conjunction with high citation rates for those individual papers, she is clearly notable. --Lquilter (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many important papers as per Pete Hurd, major awards, what more do we need? --Crusio (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'd pulled this one up on a tab yesterday and went looking for it today, and came back here to report that google scholar showed numerous papers including some very highly cited ones. But Pete.Hurd has already covered it with more authoritative source, so this is just confirmation. This bio profile @ NLM's exhibition on women physicians is one of several references that should be added. Also I'd like to note that, in general, directors at teaching hospitals are also often (usually?) research positions and are not usually handed out except to people with very strong (one might say "notable") CVs. --Lquilter (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Web of Knowledge search indicates she has co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed journal articles, some of which have themselves been cited over 300 times. (Cannot cite WoK in artucle as it is a subscription only site). Article has been revised to add references to notable professional awards.  Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  20:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't see why WoK cannot be cited in the article. We cite books, too, don't we? And usually we cannot link to a book either and you'd have to buy it (or pay a library subscription) to read it. So citation seems fine, you just cannot link through to it. --Crusio (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * keep - plenty of verified assertion of notability. the COI matters are nearly unimportant right now, the starter of the article has only made a couple of edits after it was started.  Is there any real point in keeping this open the full time?  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * COI isn't a reason to delete anyway. --Lquilter (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is snowing. --Crusio (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * not quite, I requested the nominator and early delete !voters consider re-thinking, and apparently, they remain unswayed. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite, as I said on your Talk page, if people will put the supposed links to prove her notability as a writer and award winner into the article, then I'll change my mind.  Corvus cornix  talk  03:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not unswayed? Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, as the article is so poorly formatted and the sources are not all linked properly. An expert opinion from another medical doctor Wikipedian might help. Bearian (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom  Pump me  up  10:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. OK, apparently it is thawing and the snow is gone, people still vote delete. I have added a reference for one award and added info on that reference to the article, which actually is another major award in itself (being included in a list of people that have changed the face of medicine by the National Library of Medicine, now how could that not confer notability?) --Crusio (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on the changes that have been made to the article, I'll change my opinion to keep.  Corvus cornix  talk  19:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as rewritten, I believe that this person meets our WP:BIO criteria for inclusion. (jarbarf) (talk) 01:01, 23 December 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.