Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molly Rapert
- 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The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Molly Rapert[edit]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Molly Rapert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cannot seem to establish WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NPROF#C1. Her Scholar profile suggests quite a broad impact in her field. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Her h-index doesn't seem to be that impressive, or am I missing something? Nearlyevil665 (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- h-indices vary widely across fields: higher in the sciences, lower in humanities and social sciences. She is a scholar of marketing, which would presumably fall in the lower h-index category. I was referring primarily to the number of highly-cited papers she has authored or coauthored. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Understood. Makes sense. I'd like to rescind said nomination. Apologies for not thinking that detail through. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- h-indices vary widely across fields: higher in the sciences, lower in humanities and social sciences. She is a scholar of marketing, which would presumably fall in the lower h-index category. I was referring primarily to the number of highly-cited papers she has authored or coauthored. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Her h-index doesn't seem to be that impressive, or am I missing something? Nearlyevil665 (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.