Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reesa Greenberg


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 21:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Reesa Greenberg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. She appears to have a lot of publications and some of them are highly cited. Boleyn, why don't you think she meets WP:NACADEMICS? Tchaliburton (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak delete She does have a lot of publications (as do most professors). But I see no evidence that she has any of the criteria for WP:NACADEMICS, of which the first three are:
 * 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. (emphasis mine)
 * 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
 * 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).

Although a book that she edited is shown to be cited 195 times, that's really not a huge number in most fields (hers is museum exhibits, which is a very small field), and articles she authored don't appear to have been as widely cited. (Note: my own bibliography is longer than hers and my articles cited more often, and I am not claiming notability. That said, I am sure that praise and attention are not equitably distributed across academia.) LaMona (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I follow LaMona's analysis regarding academic impact. In addition, I could not find coverage to meet WP:GNG.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. A h-index of 5 is too low for WP:PROF, and I see no other indications of notability. -- 101.117.59.62 (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as per . I found two mentions, added them as references, but we really need more to meet the test for the WP:GNG--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2014 (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.