Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paula Rothermel


 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Paula Rothermel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Do not believe she is notable, not actually mentioned in a lot of references mentioned in the article, seems like the subject has written the article about herself for self-promotion Sheroddy (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, speedy close. No substantive argument or analysis advanced in support of deletion. Nominator seems to be engaging in a disturbingly Qwortyesque deletion jihad. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, promotional piece with obvious COI, no secondary references, just of bunch of primary sources often written by the same subject. --Cavarrone 09:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't think the society fellowships listed here are selective enough to count for WP:PROF, and her work is not heavily cited enough for #C1. The article appears to be making a case instead for #C7 (non-academic impact of academic work) but if primary sources are all that can be found then the case is too weak. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and David Eppstein - searches simply don't turn up enough for her to pass WP:GNG or WP:PROF.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:22, 4 September 2015 (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.