Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp

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 speedy keep. Closing early as clear keep - Cantucove - please read WP:BEFORE as nominating perfectly fine articles for no reason usually doesn't end well. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp[edit]

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

Non-notable, no news coverage.--Cantucove (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chief of one of the branches of the CDC. She is fairly widely quoted in news articles related to autism, which seems counter to the assertion in the nomination statement. Will add some sources to remove doubts about coverage. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nom is reminded of WP:BEFORE. While being a CDC branch chief does not make somebody notable, this is not generally a position given to obscure scientists. Looking at GScholar, we see that her most-cited article was cited over 1000 (THOUSAND!) times, the second one over 600 times, the third one over 400 times. That's over 2000 for those three papers alone. That's not "fairly widekly quoted", that's exceptionally highly quoted and a clear meet of WP:ACADEMIC#1. I notice that the nom is new here, so I would recommend that they familiarize themselves more with WP policies and guidelines before nominating further articles for deletion. I strongly advice the nom to withdraw this proposal, to save the community time. In addition, this nomination seems to be "collateral damage" from an edit war on Sweet Briar College and a more collaborative approach to editing WP is highly desirable. --Randykitty (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Randykitty. Not only is she a CDC branch chief but a notable scientist. As an academic who clearly meets the notability criteria based on the amount which she has published. She has made numerous appearances in the American media, where she has been explaining some of the research she has been involved with, examples such as: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Like the comment above, I'm quite surprised at seeing this article being nomination for deletion. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:32, 20 March 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.