- 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) Flooded with them hundreds 14:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Linda C. Sobell (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)
Not notable and self-promotional. DefeatFraud (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I'm new, so I hope I followed the instructions properly. Forgive me if I broke etiquette or protocol, I'm still learning. DefeatFraud (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:PROF#C3 as an American Psychological Association fellow (elected 1990, verifiable on the official site) and Canadian Psychological Association fellow (see here). The "distinguished professor" is an annual award, not the kind of honor that automatically qualifies under WP:PROF#C5, but we don't need C5 when it already meets C3. In addition, her Web of Science h-index is 43, which is high enough to qualify for WP:PROF#C1. The page is a bit dry, but it is not unduly promotional. I gave it a once-over for excessively CV-like content, and I think any remaining issues can be fixed through ordinary editing. Nothing calls for deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As well as the pass of WP:PROF#C3 documented here her Google Scholar citation counts (for search term author:lc-sobell) appear even higher than claimed above, with top citation count on GS over 3500 and 48 publications with over 100 citations each (h-index presumably well above that), so the case for #C1 is also clear. I found three published reviews of one of her books [1] [2] [3] and a significant controversy over one of her papers, reported as having "attracted considerable attention" [4]. So there is also plenty of material with which to expand her article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As above, believe passes WP:NPROF. Eagleash (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In addition to the points made above, she is also a recipient of multiple national level scientific awards, and that would already be enough to pass WP:PROF#C1. I added several references for those. This kind of specific and detailed biographical coverage [5][6] should be sufficient to pass WP:BIO/WP:GNG as well. I should add that it appears that the subject had been involved in a major scientific controversy in the 1980s. [7],[8], [9], [10] Something about that ought to be added to the article, if someone has the time to look into the sources more closely and figure out what to say. Nsk92 (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2018 (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.