Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Scholz


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Susan Scholz

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The only sign of notability I can find is that this person has won the Wildman Medal Award, which may satisfy WP:PROF if it is indeed prestigious enough, but the article itself is poorly sourced (and in need of formatting help) and I cannot find much else, or much coverage of her winning the award.  fetch  comms  ☛ 21:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. GS cites seem to be 250, 192, 109, 81, 78 .... for h index = 15, which comes close to a pass in WP:Prof #1. Does the nominator think that citations are of no account? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Comment Number of citations is perhaps not "of no account", but of very little account. In some academic areas it is common for papers to be peppered with citations to passing mentions in other papers of only tangential relevance, for several reasons. Also automatic citation counting can frequently include indirect citations. If the citations are from papers which give significant coverage of Scholz's work then they are clearly relevant, and even minor citations can add up to significance if there are enough of them, but care is needed in assessing their value: utterly trivial citations (which are common in some disciplines) mean almost nothing, and the mere fact that citations exist proves very little. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete A lot hinges on the relative importance of the Wildman award and the custom when it comes citations in the field of accounting (as well as the relative importance of publishing - different fields have different customs, and accounting is surely a practitioner's field more than a researcher's). I will note that her vita doesn't seem to provide any other signs of notability. That, and the low rank, incline me towards deletion.  Ray  Talk 21:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep' on balance-- on the basis of the citations, which is the most objective way of determining notability.  DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I don't see anything of notability in this article, and for what we know even the award she earned could be rather worthless. And if that are all her publications, I vote even stronger for deleting. Articles may list notable publications; none of them seem like they are. Nageh (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep on basis of citation record WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC).
 * On basis of citation record? Are you kidding? Every academic must write papers, and nothing here seems notable. Can you show us what would qualify her under #1? Nageh (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy on notability of researchers, scholars and academics is found here. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC).
 * Again you do not (want to) understand my question. Verify the following statement: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.. Where is the significant impact??? Nageh (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2010 (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.