Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alva noe

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alva noe

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

No establishment of notability עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, the article should be at Alva Noë, instead of the current title. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GS cites 955, 549, 308, 248, 94 etc. h index =19. Passes WP:Prof #1. I remind the nominator to carry out WP:Before before bringing articles to AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Also passes GNG-- see GNews: Reviews of her books in multiple newspapers [1]. Forbes article on her: [2] , among others. What is Google for, if not to make simple things like this very easy. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- His, not her. I bet he gets that a lot, though, with that name. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. WoS also shows lots of publications using "Author=(Noe A*) Refined by: Institutions=(UNIV CALIF SANTA CRUZ OR UNIV CALIF BERKELEY) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI". This may miss some pubs, though I'm also not convinced that there aren't some false positives in a simple GS query. Be that as it may, citations are pretty good: 298, 120, 42, 25, 22, 17,... for a WoS-h-index of 8. Normally, this would tilt toward delete, but the cumulative number of citations seems to be around 600, which certainly helps to compensate. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2010 (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.