Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Christians

: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 delete. Cirt (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Allison Christians]]=

:{{la|Allison Christians}} ([{{fullurl:Allison Christians|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Christians}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Assistant professor with no evidence of any unusually high academic impact (such as highly cited papers) that would allow a pass of WP:PROF #1 at this early stage of her career, and who clearly does not pass the other criteria of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete as original prodder, would change my mind if she could be shown to pass WP:PROF or the GNG. Abductive (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Well referenced article of a published academic. Beltline (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Note to closing admin: This user is currently under investigation as a possible sockpuppet of banned User:Azviz -- if the close is close please check the status of this editor at that time. DreamGuy (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

:*If you read WP:PROF, you'll discover that "published academic" is not a sufficient criterion for keeping an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:PROF, lacks impact, lacks significant coverage. Maybe notable in the future but not today.--RadioFan (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete per WP:ACADEMIC. DreamGuy (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete The content shows a successful career, but no evidence of notability. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete Almost certainly not notable, unless some of the papers are extremely important, and there is no indication of this. It is exceedingly rare that someone who is still an assitant professor will have achieved enough professional recognition to meet WP:PROF. It was unrealistic to mark this article for rescue. DGG (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. WoS shows only 1 peer-reviewed publication (Christians AD, Columbia J. Law Soc. Prob. 1999) which has been cited 4 times. (Oddly, this publication is NOT listed in the article, though it does appear on her [http://law.wisc.edu/faculty/cv.php?iID=657 CV].) Note that the other papers listed as "peer-reviewed publications", may not actually qualify in the academic sense. For example, "Tax Treaties for..." seems to be some sort of conference paper: Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 05-10. Perhaps someone closer to the legal profession could weigh-in on these papers. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC).
Delete Individual does not appear notable. rmosler (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

: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.