Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Kandel

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. John254 04:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Kandel

Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. possible copyvio http://asp.cumc.columbia.edu/facdb/profile_list.asp?uni=jjk47&DepAffil=Surgery. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.Hu12 (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Medline finds 29 papers for "JJ Kandel", some in high-profile journals eg PNAS and many more in well-respected subject-specific journals eg Cancer Res; there are also a few reviews. Google Scholar finds over 100 citations for two of her papers, both on vascular endothelial growth factor, with a further two over 50, and several over 20. Borderline, but probably meets WP:PROF for the VEGF work. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citations found by Espresso Addict show that she passes criteria 2-4 of WP:PROF. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A little less notable than some of the others. But why perhaps copyvio--its a web source and we can all check--if it were it would have been speedily deleted, but its just based on it. DGG (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2008 (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.