Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Goldrick-Rab (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  20:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sara Goldrick-Rab
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable. This person is an assistant professor who seems to be doing what she is paid for - teaching, research and publishing. But none of this seems to make her any more notable than the thousands of other assistant professors in the world. &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 10:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see her as passing WP:PROF. This looks just a tad better than a curriculum vitae. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   -- --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions.   -- --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with the nom. A junior academic and a rather recent PhD. The record does not indicate anything particularly notable yet, just a good academic in the beginning of her career. Does not pass WP:PROF for now. Nsk92 (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Assistant professors are rarely notable. Let's see again 10 years from now. --Crusio (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy? I see that this very same article has undergone AfD once before with deletion as a result. Isn't recreation then a reason to speedily delete? --Crusio (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is better to let this AfD run its course. The previous article was deleted a year ago (as a copyvio, before substantive debate was conclusively finished), and it is concievable that something substantially new happened since then. Nsk92 (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * delete GS lists citations as 13, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1... I'd be willing to disagree with Crusio if there was evidence of substantial impact of her work, but I think Nsk92 describes it well. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. As I said in the first AfD, “Insufficiently accomplished to pass WP:PROF yet, I think.” I don't see anything here to change that position. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete . One book coauthorship and 6 or 7 articles? not notable yet. DGG (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2008 (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.