| abstract | - Notability is not inheirited. causa sui (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
* Delete - Delete in current form. Agree that notability is not inherent. Would support the article if it is re-written. A good place to start is HERE and her notability could start from "she is best known as one of the pioneering researchers on job burnout, and the author of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI)" Just a note to the creator if they want the article to survive Rfd. State the notability in the article and cite it. --Morning277 (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
* Would the nominator care to say what he found for her citation record in the Google Scholar link above? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC). Not particularly. causa sui (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
* Strong Keep -- Full professor at Berkeley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, "Professor of the Year" by the Carnegie Foundation, president of the Western Psychological Association, Chair of the Faculty, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education at one of the top ranked schools in the world. Most of her books have been translated into multiple foreign languages. Could the nominator say what he or she feels Prof. Maslach's notability is being inherited from? It seems like she has far more than enough on her own. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC) The article creates the impression that notability is inheirited from Philip Zimbardo, obviously. causa sui (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Perhaps obviously to someone reading the article with the sexist viewpoint that women can't be important in their own right and must only be evaluated by what their husband does. Should we take out the single dry sentence that she's married to Zimbo, since it seems to be causing such problems? But given the connection between his and her work I think it's relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
* Snow Keep. To the above, we can add that her (WoS) h-index is 24, far above the threshold region of 10-15, with citation counts: 1160, 1061,... This is a conclusive pass on WP:PROF. Any perceived problems with the article can be handled by editing and we do not need to spend any more time debating notability. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC).
* Strong and clear Keep as above. Agricola44 has answered my question that the nominator was unable to address. On GS the subject has 6 refs with over 1000 cites, by our standards a stupendously good record. Nominator is advised to study WP:Prof and WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC). Hopefully some of this information will be added to the article before the AFD closes. In general I tend to disregard the sentiment that memorizing lengthy rulebooks is a requirement for participation. causa sui (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC) It's certainly not an obstacle to participation in AfDs, but I think AfD nominators should be held to a higher standard. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep per Michael Scott Cuthbert and Agricola44. I'd also like to add that the fact that an article needs improvement is never a valid reason for deletion on its own. It's a valid reason for improving it. Voceditenore (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep per Michael Scott Cuthbert and Agricola44. WJBscribe (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
* Strong keep per WP:PROF#C1 (six publications with over 1000 cites each; ten times fewer would still be easily enough to convince me of her impact) and #3 (AAAS fellow). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
* Snow keep per David Eppstein. The nom is advised not to be so casual about guidelines. -- 202.124.73.150 (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
|
