Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Glazebrook

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Glazebrook

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

Fails WP:NACADEMICS and WP:GNG with only one source in the news; article is just a list of publications, writing like all professors do. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 02:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably more accurate to say that most professors write rather than that all do - but the important thing in this case is that, at least according to Google Scholar, two papers she has been involved in writing (including one of which she was sole author) have been cited over 1,000 times and 30 have been cited over 100 times. We standardly reckon that this level of citation represents a clear pass of WP:NACADEMICS#1. The article could certainly do with some rewriting (it is odd, for example, that given the numbers quoted in the last sentence, the first of the subject's publications listed in the article is apparently a recent one that has so far been cited only 11 times), but this is not in itself a reason for deletion. PWilkinson (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1. To PWilkinson's detailed explanation I would add that one of the top two papers is singly-authored by her. (It's in a review journal rather than original research, but still I think that should be enough to show that her individual contributions are significant.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion, but she does appear on the Thompson-Reuters most cited scientists list, and is one of a small number of women who appear there. bd2412 T 23:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes this article of hers was cited over 600+ times. Important scientist.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. -- 120.23.60.37 (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She is the editor-in-chief of a journal, Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions, though I know nothing about this journal's significance. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:09, 5 January 2015 (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.