- 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Kristine French (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Supplied references are grossly insufficient to establish notability. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability is not established by what is actually in the article. The article may have no sources at all, and the subject can still be notable. Editors need to look for sources online to see if the subject is notable or not instead of relying on what is already in the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - the product of a disastrously poorly-administered editathon seemingly coordinated by the minions of Satan to make everybody logged into Wikipedia squabble and hate one another, or possibly an experiment to see if you can write Wikipedia articles so bad you can get cancer from looking at them for too long. However, claims of notability are credible, and I'm afraid we're going to have to show our maturity by trying to clean this mess up. Blythwood (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Full professor at high-quality university and director of its herbarium; top five research papers cited 255, 101, 92, 58, 52 times according to Google Scholar [1]. She is also particularly notable for her work on various national-level committees and as president of a national society. I believe this is adequate to satisfy the requirements of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak either way. A GS h-index of 16 is small for the well-cited field of life sciences and inclines to WP:Too soon, but this could be mitigated by contributions to science outside academic publishing. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep She's widely published -- I think her h-index is small because she's in a very specialized field: weed ecology in Australia. Plus she's the director of the herbarium. Kudos to everyone who cleaned up that article. It looks way better now. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- widely published, a journal editor, many activities, program director and full professor, leadership roles. The h-index is useful for the hard sciences, much less useful for biology and particularly agricultural work such as weed ecology. Clearly a leader in her field. Montanabw(talk) 08:01, 19 August 2016 (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.