Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah J. Tracy


 * 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   no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sarah J. Tracy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject appears to be a non-notable "organizational communication scholar" (wot dat?). Appears to be a vanity piece. Uncategorized. No outside sources other than publications of the subject. Lot's of stuff that looks like copy-pasted original research. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Seems like an essay on her theories. Not seeing how this passes wp:prof, at least not yet.  At best, most of this article is fluffy, patting oneself on the back content, with few claims to fame, and those being stated to have been sourced in her own writings.  Sounds entirely too promotional. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has an h-index of 14 on GS, with 3 top pubs with cites in the 100s. Has at least one book, Leading organizations through transition, currently in more than 350 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. The article is a mess; I will do some major cleaning up on it.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just another associate professor, not to mention the WP:BLP concerns since there are no references to support the claims in the article. —Eustress talk 06:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 21:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Delete Despite the book, there isn't enough reliable stuff to be found on the subject. — Ed! (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Her  book,  Leading organizations through transition    is by Sage, a leading publisher in the subject, and is in about 350 Worldcat libraries, though she was not the principle author. But Google scholar shows articles with 147, 127, 115.... citations--some of them papers in which she is sole author.       h=15, but what is significant is not the raw value, but that there are 3 items in the 100s.   My personal feeling is that all  afd comments including the phrase "just another ..." should be stricken. There are very few articles in Wikipedia about which that comment could not be made.    DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Per DGG, though I think that is enough for only a weak keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete per WP:BLPPROD, as the article cites no references to support notability. Zzarch (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG, whose assessment of pieces on scholars I respect. Carrite (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I don't think the book alone is enough, because it was done while she was a student and her advisor is the primary co-author. But as DGG notes there are three publications with over 100 cites each — I think that may be enough for WP:PROF. I've done some cleanup to fix the BLPPROD issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can someone clarify please. Is the h=15 value for her personally (in which case, great) or the book to which she contributed (in which case, not so great)? Emeraude (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's for her personally — it is not possible for a single publication to have an h-index. h=15 means that at least 15 of her publications each have at least 15 citations from other publications. Personally, I'm more convinced by the fact that at least three of her publications each have at least 100 citations; 15 citations is not that hard to achieve but 100 citations means it's made something of an impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2012 (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.