Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Drouin

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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Drouin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Subjectively written probable autobiography relying on self-published sources, with little likelihood of ever achieving NPOV. —Swpb^talk 11:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]
Note: as the nominator, I have changed my position to keep, per the comment by User:Drouinwiki and the cleanup work of User:Tomwsulcer (nicely done!). —Swpb^talk 12:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: CSD would be easier. -C759 (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria for speedy deletion are very specific, and I don't believe this meets them. I'm all for efficiency, but we've got to follow the rules. —Swpb^talk 14:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-weak delete I placed the COI tag on the article, as well as to the author who has only had one edit, the article creation. Once this AfD gets sorted into academics hopefully one of those watchers will investigate the notability/importance of the person.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 17:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, everyone. I wanted to let everyone know that I am the primary author to the Michelle Drouin article. As a new member of Wikipedia, I am still learning the ropes so to speak, and have the utmost respect for the Wikipedia community. I assure you that this was not an autobiography, rather I am a student that was interested in creating an entry about Dr. Drouin. I did not think there would be a COI because I took the liberty of creating this article on my own, though in reading back through I can see that I worded some things quite subjectively. Many of the articles cited in the article are linked directly to respectable academic journals in which Dr. Drouin's work has been published, as well as sources from popular media (i.e ABC News, Huffington Post, etc.). However, I now see that I need to make changes as to not cite Drouin's personal website and try to link out to other relevant wikis. After reading the suggested edits and reading through the Wikipedia guidelines carefully, I am now fully aware of the steps that I need to take to ensure that this is a properly cited, objective entry. I truly appreciate all of your feedback, and plan on making the proper edits as soon as possible. Thank you for your assistance!Drouinwiki (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for making the effort to familiarize yourself with the guidelines. The major media coverage is somewhat promising, and with the revelation that this is not an autobiography, I'm changing my position on deletion to neutral. I hope you can address the concerns raised – it would be better to see the article improved and kept than deleted. —Swpb^talk 23:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS shows cumulative citations around 60 (h-index 4). Some media presence is not surprising, considering the subject's research area. Perhaps too early. Agricola44 (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep agree about numerous problems with article, hopefully they've been fixed as per WP:HEYMANN, publishing record for Drouin is strong, there are numerous sources in article suggesting she meets the WP:GNG. Removed the CV-related stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The mainstream media attention to her research over a span of multiple years makes a clear case for WP:GNG and probably also WP:PROF#C7. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Short of PROF C1, and I may be dubious of C7, but her work has gotten GNG coverage as David Eppstein notes, and that is sufficient in view of the reasoning at WP:HEYMANN, particularly bullet item 4. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:26, 17 September 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.