Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Anna Clark

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 - Peripitus (Talk) 05:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Anna Clark[edit]

Delete non-notable individual. Like her, I'm a psychology professor, I have publications, and I've been an officer in an organization -- not a bit of which makes either of us notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Also, given that Clark made one COI addition to List of clinical psychologists, I question the origin of this article about her. Doczilla (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. President-elect of an established scientific society indicates that her peers find her notable. It is difficult to evaluate her publication record as there are apparent other people named "LA CLARK", but there are many publications listed in Web of Science, one of them in the prestigious Annual Review of Psychology (submissions only on invitation) that has been cited 261 times since 1998. --Crusio (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - as Crusio. --.Tom. (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep Using the author finder feature of WoS, which is necessary to get the medical and social science together, and sort out the different people with such a common name on the basis of their universities, there are 57 included papers, with the most highly cited being cited 3403, 1700, 826, 439 & 411 times. (I've added them to the article) The most cited is the paper on the standard test she developed, which is the sort of paper that is always highly cited for a commonly used instrument--but it certainly shows it is a very commonly-used instrument--and the others are the usual type of research papers. 1700 times for a non-methods research paper is a remarkable record in any subject, and explains why she was selected for Annual Reviews, which is as prestigious as Crusio says--and she had an earlier review there as well. . Doczilla, you do one-tenth as well and we'll put you in, like it or not. :) DGG (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established by peer acceptance (e.g author of recognized shrinko test) and I will gladly write the Doczilla article if you care to provide pointers to reliable sources which prove your angry blurb. `'Míkka >t 01:40, 6 December 2007 (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.