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 no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 14:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Gremillion[edit]

Kristen Gremillion (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)

Previous AfD closed as no consensus. Page was created by person, COI. Person is not treated by secondary sources, and no evidence exists that person is anything other than a run-of-the-mill professor. Person's h-index is weak, single digit. Page reads like a resume and contributes nothing to Wikipedia. Page gets less than 3 page views a day. Abductive (reasoning) 05:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I find a GS h-index of around 14. A little bit below the border line. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. I agree that 14 is conventionally in the "borderline" region, but it's worth noting that anthropology is a low-citation field. WoS shows her 26 papers have been cited collectively >250 times by other archival papers and, importantly, almost all of her papers are first-author or single-author publications. These figures suggest she's a noted authority in her field. Agricola44 (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Do you have a secondary source that says that? Because otherwise, that's just opinion. Also, only one article, Chenopodium, links to her article. Not much of a leading expert. Abductive (reasoning) 06:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The link I furnished above is to an empirical study published in the Journal of Sociology showing citation rates are much lower than, for example, biology. Because we don't "self cite" here, there's no need that Wikipedia recognizes her as an expert. The salient point is that the academic world recognizes her as such and this is demonstrated by >250 citations by other journal articles to her work. Agricola44 (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• • • Several other articles cite her work and should be linked to her article if it is kept. They include Watson Brake, Oxidizable carbon ratio dating, Paleoethnobotany, Archaic period in North America, Native Americans in the United States, History of Native Americans in the United States, Food history, Poverty Point culture, and Handbook of North American Indians. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It's still a bit of a borderline case, but there have been two positive developments since the inconclusive 2009 AfD: she was promoted to full professor (at Ohio State, a major research university) and she published a book "Ancestral Appetites: Food in Prehistory" that I think was aimed more at the general public than at academia and that has attracted some media attention [1] [2] [3]. That's enough to tip the balance for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- full prof at a tier I research institution definitely passes the Average Prof. Test for me. GS cites and h-indexes are not used often for anthro. promotions and those citing them should be able to show what an average notable h-index in anthropology is before using them as evidence. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not seeing anything to distinguish he as being notable per guidelines. Where is the substantial coverage in reliable independent sources? Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the scholar link above. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Please note that the subject of the article is a woman, so "he" is not the appropriate pronoun. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look like a typo for "her" to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2014 (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.