Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francine McKenna

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 no consensus. Sandstein 21:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francine McKenna[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Journalist who doesn't appear to have garnered any recognition beyond bylines on articles that she's written. I don't see any evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. While searching online, I found this article which would allege that she was nominated for, but did not win, an award. According to a Google Scholar search, McKenna's h-index appears to be about 3, and that's only if you include citations for articles that she wrote in mass media publications (i.e. not scientific papers), which is far short of WP:NACADEMIC. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article because I felt that she was pretty influential in the corporate accounting world. I would be willing to better the article, but I certainly feel that she is relevant enough for Wikipedia's standards as I read them. Mailman9 (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no significant independent coverage of her and I see nothing that shows notability as a reporter or professor.Sandals1 (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has received recognition - she is quoted as a consultant and expert, and her blog recommended, in several textbooks, and many newspaper articles, about business and corporate ethics. She meets WP:AUTHOR #1: "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". I have added some references (including a quote from one textbook that her blog "should be on every corporate accountant and CPAs watchlist"), and will try to add more. I am somewhat hampered by Google books not showing all pages around references, and also in trying to work out what the issues are that she reported on, that these sources are referencing her about (eg involving Lehman Brothers, Ernst & Young, AIG, etc). RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 23:18, 18 March 2019 (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.