Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Gallagher

:{{la|Pamela Gallagher}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Pamela Gallagher}})

There is no indication in the article or via Google that this author and academic is notable. I could not reliably verify that the person passes WP:PROF, let alone WP:GNG. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Gscholar h-index is 10, the book published by Springer has her as one of three editors, and the front matter verifies that she is a senior lecturer in psychology in the School of Nursing at Dublin City University. This one is somewhat borderline, I suppose. Springer doesn't pick just anybody to edit volumes in a field. Ray^Talk 02:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Sure, but at the same time Springer isn't always considered the creme de la creme, and editing (or writing) a book doesn't make for notability by itself. Do we have any kind of standard for h-indices? Thanks for your input, Drmies (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• BTW, I don't mind being proven wrong here; in fact, I'd appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah, I'm not sure where this all fits. H-indices are strongly field dependent, and I suspect for psychology 10 is on the low side of notability, but I was just burned in a recent discussion when my attempt at normalizing went awry. That's why I offered up a comment and not a !vote - I'm not sure which way this one goes. Ray^Talk 15:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Don't go with me, then--I'm not tenured yet, and I doubt that my h-index would impress anyone. Still, the closing administrator will no doubt take your comments into account. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Citation counts not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. Nothing relevant found in Google news archive. No other evidence of significance apparent in the article. "Psychoprosthetics" and "Enabling Technologies" are both reliably published books, but they're edited volumes rather than monographs so they don't really do anything to demonstrate the impact of her research. Unless something else turns up during the AfD, this looks like a failure of both WP:PROF and WP:GNG to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:05, 15 December 2010 (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.