Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Glennerster


 * 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The result was   withdrawn by nominator. The Bushranger One ping only 19:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Rachel Glennerster

 * – ( View AfD View log )

only sources are infocards and cv, no secondary sourcing establishing notability aprock (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nominator should be admonished to follow WP:BEFORE — there are plenty of articles in Google news, in sources of the highest prominence, that mention her: e.g.    . Most only mention her trivially, but I am finding pretty strong coverage both for her book "Strong Medicine" (e.g. the Times Higher Education review) and her studies of whether microfinance works (e.g. the Boston Globe story). I think that may be enough for WP:GNG. And the Google scholar citations tell the same story (over 100 citations for each, and also for her article on how to use randomization in studies of developmental economics) giving a plausible case for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * keep&mdash;per David Eppstein, who went and found every reason i could find, so i have little to add but my concurrence.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * withdraw I am happy to withdraw this AfD. aprock (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2011 (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.