Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Townsend-Small

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 keep. Consensus was that Townsend-Small passes WP:PROF. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Townsend-Small[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF. No independent sources showing they have had a significant impact in their dicipline, no highly pretigious awards (their award from the OEC was not at a national or international level), not a member of a scholarly society, no indication that their work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, they are only an associate professor, haven't held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution, have not had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity, and have not been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, userfy or move to draft - as per nom. No evidence of anything suggesting notability. Appears to be the work of a student - might be more tactful to userfy it or move it to Draft and simply let it expire in 6 months time. Certainly fails WP:GNG but there might be areas of notability not currently revealed. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An h-index of 24 in what I suspect is a not-too-highly-cited field inclines me towards a keep by WP:PROF#C1. There is also a smattering of news sources covering her work or quoting her as an expert ([1][2][3][4] look reliable and not too local). These count towards WP:PROF#C7. XOR'easter (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have evidence that Geophysics and Environmental Science are not highly cited fields? According to this paper, they both seem above average. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 20:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of third-party sources does not indicate notability for associate professor. Quoted articles do not describe Townsend-Small herself. Reywas92^Talk 19:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you using WP:GNG? You shouldn't be. The correct notability guideline is WP:PROF, and it says nothing about requiring third-party sources. And if we do have sources on her (as I believe we do, see below) it's not relevant whether those sources describe her love life, diet, or childhood heroes — she is a scholar and so what we should be looking for is sources describing her scholarly work. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Her citation counts are not bad, but not strong enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. And her awards are too local to pass #C2. But I think she gets by on #C7 based on international coverage of her work on the global warming contributions of lawns, national coverage of her work on fracking, and national coverage of the follow-on effects to her career from the fracking study. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep by WP:PROF#C7, per David Eppstein. The citation record isn't bad, but it also isn't enough by itself. XOR'easter (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:PROF with a h-index of 24. The average h-index for a full professor in geography was 6.5. For environment and ecology, 390 cites would put an academic in the top 1%. James500 (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.