Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catrin Pritchard

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catrin Pritchard

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is lacking in significant sources, with someone having a close connection of the subject, and it fails WP:NACADEMIC. Sheldybett (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Heavily cited papers on Google Scholar (16 papers with over 100 citations, 1 with over 1000) give a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1, and "appointed Chair of Cancer Biochemistry at the University of Leicester" makes a plausible case for #C5. (The awards are too minor or local for #C2, but only one criterion is enough.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep per Eppstein. This misguided nomination should be withdrawn. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per David. I also expanded the article a bit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject clearly passes WP:PROF#C1. Nomination seems to be based on searching for {{Notability}} tags rather than independently assessing through WP:BEFORE. Bakazaka (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Time for Sheldybett to withdraw this nom I think. Victuallers (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Google scholar shows plenty of citations and she clearly meets WP:NPROF. Sandals1 (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep According to THIS, it meets WP:NPROF. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:18, 15 February 2019 (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.