Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Margaret Kerr


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Mary Margaret Kerr

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article was created yesterday, it is one of several articles created by user:Leadersproject. Comes off as something of a CV, and is rather peacock flavored. Multiple issues here - they are listed in a template on the article page - boils down to little notability demonstrated with no reliable sources to back it up. Bringing here because assertion of notability voids a speedy, and it may be too controversial for WP:PROD.  Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 16:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak Keep and cleanup - lots of cleanup - specifically, some poor wikignoming soul has to add tons of footnotes. Gscholar gives an h-index of 12 or so, which is marginal for WP:PROF Criterion 1 (not being familiar with citation rates in psychiatry), and there is Gnews information verifying that she is frequently brought in as an outside expert in things like superintendent searches and other matters of school administration, constituting an arguable pass of WP:PROF criterion 7, "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." Ray  Talk 21:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. The lack of proper referencing is a WP:BLP issue, and I'm unhappy with any "keep" argument that relies on WP:Somebody Else's Problem, particularly when the original article author seems to have lost interest. That said, there are indeed citations of her work on GS. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Author responds to reviewers' concerns of article on talk page. Please reference those comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leadersproject (talk • contribs)
 * 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.