Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Seneff
Since I created the article, a fair amount of additional negative material has been added cited to questionable sources (e.g. the blogs above). Nevertheless, there actually is one reliable independent source in the article now: the Washington Post (reference 3). Other reliable sources include http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-04-25/lifestyle/sns-rt-us-roundup-health-studybre93o13h-20130425_1_glyphosate-biotech-crops-roundup Chicago Tribune, http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/08/sunny-side-up-in-defense-of-eggs/261600/ The Atlantic, and this admittedly brief article in the Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/research-gone-wild-the-future-of-autism. I think, though, that the strongest argument for Seneff's notability comes from her h-index, which, according to Google Scholar, is 48. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=author%3A%22Seneff%2C+Stephanie%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C11&as_sdtp= (Note that I used https://www.mat.unical.it/ianni/wiki/ScholarHIndexCalculator this tool on Chrome to calculate her h-index.) I think an h-index this high is enough to meet #C1 in almost any field, including computer science (her actual area of expertise). Given all this, I think the article should be kept, but having created it I do not consider myself unbiased enough to vote as to whether it should be deleted or not
— User:Everymorning, 17:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:PROF (Wikipedia:Notability)