Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Anne Johnston

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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Anne Johnston[edit]

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

I accepted this from AFC because I don't think it is unquestionably deletion-worthy. Nonetheless, I believe it should be deleted because I cannot verify that she meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. The 100 papers referenced in the article are not 100 papers by her -- they are 100 papers on this general subject matter. Searching for her name plus "electrophoresis" in Google Scholar gives next to nothing of importance, and the papers cited in the article are not particularly noteworthy based on citation counts. (Note that she seems to have gone by PA Van Tets for some publications, but this doesn't help citation counts.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I misread this point in my earlier comments. I think the papers listed in the article ore her only publications. The most prominent is the paper is systematic Zoology, a major journal in the subject, but according to Google Scholar it has only 9 citations ( the search term I used is ("PA Johnston" deer) & similarly with the subject words chromatography and Odocoileus. The other people by that name seem to be in different fields . Gerard Frederick van Tets, on the other hand, is notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG, whom I respect based on his comments at other AfDs. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google scholar finds other highly cited work by Patricia A. Johnston but it seems to be someone else. The correct search term appears instead to be Patricia van Tets, which gives results matching what DGG says above. In any case, we have no evidence for passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 11 July 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.