Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Christofidou (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. Discussion largely centered around PROF C1 j⚛e decker ^talk 16:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Christofidou

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

I cannot find sufficient indicia of notability with regard to this lecturer, though the lecturer certainly does exist. It survived an AfD 8 years ago, though the rationales that were acceptable there seem somewhat different from our current standards. Epeefleche (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak, weak keep~~ Neutral. GS cites are 11, 5, 5, 1, 1, so not up to usual standards but cites are always low for philosophers. She wtote an editorial in the THES. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. After doing my own Googling, I've been unable to find any independent coverage. All I've been able to find on Christofidou is her own work, and it appears the author(s) of this article had the same problem. Lord Bromblemore 13:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only. She is an academic in a leading institution who has published various articles, perhaps neough to push her just into notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only possible claim to notability I see is from WP:PROF#C1. 23 citations, total, over the course of a career, fall far short of that. I'd need to see some extraordinary evidence about scarcity of citations for prominent researchers in her field before an h-index of 3 would be considered notable. Ray^Talk 10:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Being an academic who has published (even with an appointment at Oxford) is not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I accept the consensus to delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2013 (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.