Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Huff

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 speedy keep. Invalid deletion motivations by a new user. As a consequence, it snowed. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Huff

[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)

Suspicous academic, not sourced 25lucky (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not yet looked at this nomination in particular, but the nominator made a few edits last December and then started up on 13th with an apparent sole focus on various types of deletion/draftification. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Management, Technology, Germany, Ireland, England, California, Colorado, Illinois, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's a rather paltry deletion rationale. What does "suspicious" mean? And lacking sources isn't itself a reason for deletion; the more important question is whether sources can be found. Anyway, a quick check of Google Scholar finds 3 publications with over 1,000 citations each, and 22 with over 100; the h-index is somewhere in the upper 20's. That makes passing WP:PROF#C1 at least plausible. JSTOR gives a review of Writing for Scholarly Publication [1], one of the co-authored When Firms Change Direction [2], and three of the co-edited Mapping Strategic Knowledge [3][4][5], so while WP:AUTHOR isn't immediately satisfied there's at least a chance that, if other reviews turn up, it could be met that way. And the high citation counts for the two single-author books [6][7] don't exactly hurt. Being president of the Academy of Management [8] may also qualify for WP:PROF#C6. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there are enough reviews of enough books to make a case for WP:AUTHOR, even if one discounts the reviews for edited volumes. Head of the Academy of Management is plausibly a pass of WP:PROF#C6. I think her works are highly-enough cited for #C1. And no valid deletion rationale has been provided. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, several of her papers and books are highly cited and she probably passes NPROF-C1. The reviews show a pass of NAUTHOR. --Mvqr (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WP:PROF#C6 and WP:AUTHOR passes are at least plausible, and the case for passing WP:PROF#C1 is good. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and that the nomination has been discredited. Geschichte (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2023 (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.