Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Herbert

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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Herbert

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

Mostly non-notable ~~with no integration into the wiki as-is~~. Shaded0 (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near passing the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Per WP:NPROF. Lets see: Doctor with multiple Postgraduate qualifications. Honorary senior lecturer at 3 important medical schools. chair of a relevant panel of the Royal College of Pathologists for 5 years. Editor of a relevant journal, current co-editor of another relevant journal. Author of 138 Research items with multiple citations. In short, meets cirteria. A Guy into Books (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aguyintobooks. An since when was a (bogus) claim of "no integration into the wiki as-is" a criterion for deletion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fair bit of coverage here in this book. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's highly published. I've added some of her publications to the article and they are top Medical journals. Often, she is the lead author. In Google Scholar she looks highly cited. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Herbert meets WP:GNG and WP:PROF, with her editing credentials alone. Add in her well-cited publications and there is no question of her notability. I'm puzzled by the nom's criterion "integration into the wiki". Is that an opaque reference to the article's former orphan status? Seems an odd reason to nominate for deletion. At any rate, it does now have one incoming link, and more would be welcome. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF, numerous works cited and now in the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I deorphaned the article. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Think it meets notability as per the above. Sorry for the improper submission on this for XFD, thanks for all the comments/review. Shaded0 (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aguy, Ritchie333, Megalibrarygirl, etc. Montanabw^(talk) 18:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being highly published contributes nothing to notability under WP:Prof. GS h-index of 19 is only borderline for the highly cited field field of bio-med. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aguy, Megalibrarygirl, Ritchie333. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Xxan's reminder that publication has no bearing on notability is apt. That said, I think h-index 19 probably squeaks-by in this high-citation field. Agricola44 (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per above. Hmlarson (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2017 (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.