Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Glassman

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Glassman[edit]

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

Part of an apparent promotional campaign. The claim of 52 publications sounded impressive, until I actually looked. She has written one book, co-chaired one conference, and written a dozen of so technical reports mostly for the Center for Global Development , (itself the subject of an exceptionally spammy and congratulatory article which will need to be looked at. )These reports are typically found in only two or three libraries, and are usually under 100 pages. I listed a few of them. The other publication are magazine articles.

The other references are either her own works, her own organization's work, or her own blurbs for various conferences and organization, DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the level of publications is not enough to satisfy the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. GS h-index of around 17 in average-cited field of public health may pass WP:Prof#C1. Other positions held may contribute to WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

But she is not an academic. Her notability, such as it is , is as an organizer. Public health is not a low cited field. Anyway, it's not h index that matters but the distribution of citation h=17 can mean 17 items with 17 citations each, or 1item with 500 and 16 items with 16 each. Here, she has no item with over 100 citations, and in biomedical sciences, that's the effective minimum standard. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I cannot find any meaningful reviews of her work; article is advertorially toned. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2017 (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.