Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriana Lita

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) Sulfurboy (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Lita (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)

Appears to fail WP:Academic and WP:GNG. Not overly promotional but does read like a CV. No evidence that papers are notable, and publications do not make a subject notable without more (per WP:Academic) ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Heavy citations on Google Scholar [1] give an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 (and has worked on significant research projects). Reading like a CV is grounds for editing, not deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on WP:PROF#C1 as stated above. TJMSmith (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as although the article needs some work, the subject appears to be notable. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Paucity of sole-author contributions makes me wonder if independent achievement has been demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep She has 7436 citations on Google Scholar. Also, in some fields it is almost impossible to write sole authored papers and almost all papers have multiple authors. She is the first author on paper that was quoted 647 times. Lainx (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Her list of publications at Google Scholar convinces me that WP:NPROF is met. Papaursa (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I second User:XOR'easter, Passes WP:PROF#C1. Pratat (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2020 (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.