Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Ramsay Shaw
Based on collective edits of the nominator in this case, what seems clear is the following: (1) With all due respect, nom is entirely ignorant of academic conventions and standards, especially as they apply to  under whose criteria this article is being evaluated. In particular, s/he seems incapable of accepting/understanding that (a) Prof. Shaw's research has had a glaringly obvious impact on her field, as evidenced by numerous highly-cited papers, (b) academic governing bodies, even at the highest-ranking institutions, ''accept'' precisely this sort of evidence as proof of the notability of one's scholarship, in fact it is essentially the necessary and sufficient condition in the hard sciences (in which the subject works), (c) they do ''not'' consider any sort of outside validation to be necessary for judging scholarship impact/notability, e.g. mention in the popular media, in review papers, in non-technical publications, in news or trade magazines, or anything else the nom might claim is necessary, (d) WP has a long, established history of reasoning the notability of professor-type articles along these same lines because there does not appear to be a more objective way of doing so, and (e) there's no reason to insist we should now adopt a wildly different standard for this article alone. (2) This discussion is ripe with , suggesting  concerns. I'm afraid that further engaging the nom in any sort of debate will be a waste of time (e.g. we now have to demonstrate that the H-index is not defined for "words", see
— User:Eric, 15:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:PROF||WP:IDHT||WP:NPOV (Wikipedia:Notability)