Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan E Lovie-Kitchin

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. Not really a compelling case for deletion but either way consensus is to Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jan E Lovie-Kitchin

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

Single source article relying on possibly an autobiographical reference. Notability is not established and is doubtful. cherkash (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article's creator did not make a particularly compelling case for notability in the article, and his writing is prone to grammatical and factual errors, but I easily found sources that support this subject's notability. I think that there is a case for notability given her ACO life membership and given that she was one of two developers of the most popular type of LogMAR chart, the Bailey-Lovie chart. Failing that, she has an impressive citation record. I could not find a GS profile, but a GS search for JE Lovie shows citation counts of 1124, 303, 210, 177, 104, 98, 96, 86, 67... not including a couple of entries that appear to refer to other authors. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there's enough citations here for WP:PROF#C1. The >1000 citations for the acuity chart may be enough by themselves, but the other well-cited works save this from WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. on the basis of the citations.Meets WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 23 February 2016 (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.