Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shulamit Almog

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. Sandstein 06:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shulamit Almog[edit]

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

Under-sourced WP:BLP from a WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Neutral provisionally. Few GS cites, some books, editor-in-chief of some journals may pass WP:Prof #8. The nominator's claim that the article is under-sourced is ridiculous. There are ample sources: whether they are sufficient for notability remains to be decided. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

No, there are not "ample sources". Feel free to add reliable independent sources, though. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Probably Notable under WP:PROF--many articles, a number of books, ed in chief though not for a major international journal. sufficient cites for the subject. I'd like it if someone could check fro reviews of her books in Hebrew, which would clearly show the notability as an author. . DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the many publications listed in the article, most of which are law-related, show-up in WoS. It would seem a reasonable presumption that a notable law professor should have at least a single journal publication in one of the >100 top law journals indexed by WoS, but this appears not to be the case. Certainly troubling, but I'm glad to change position if something else comes up. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - It doesn't seem that her publication record is particularly impressive, and I don't think the journals she's been editor-in-chief of can be considered major (correct me if I'm wrong). However, I sort of think she almost meets several of the criteria of WP:PROF, so perhaps if someone can show that her work has been well-cited by others I might reconsider. PDCook (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Notability is more accurately measured as the max of one's accomplishments rather than the sum, and in this case I'm not seeing anything specific that rises high enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2010 (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.