Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Roskams (2nd nomination)

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Roskams[edit]

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

Jane Roskams does not reach the notability guidelines for academics. Without going through each of them independently, she does not hold a prestigious academic award or title, and no independent reliable sources exist demonstrating that she has made a significant impact in her field of research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achapman2009 (talk • contribs) — Achapman2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment. I don't see any evidence that this page was previously nominated for deletion at AfD; the number of this nomination may be incorrect. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Web of Science lists 40 publications for "Roskams AJ", which have been cited 1836 times. She has an h-index of 21. Top citation counts are 387, 200, 150, 126, 96. This is generally considered sufficient here to pass WP:PROF#1. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written in a rather horrendously promotional way and replete with badly sourced/unsourced puffery. I have cleaned it up. Better sources are still needed, though. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Guillaume2303. Tradedia (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS gives an h-index of 24 which is probably enough in this highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2012 (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.