Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia E. Burch

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 Delete. CitiCat ^♫ 03:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patricia E. Burch

Assistant Professor at University of Wisconsin. No third party sources, or claims of notability. Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 20:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article doesn't list any significant scholarly accomplishments that would pass WP:PROF and I didn't find them myself in a cursory search. Could be speedy delete A7. —David Eppstein 20:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No longer eligible for speedy deletion after DGG's edits, but I still don't see enough to change my !vote. —David Eppstein 04:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I've found that she is Principal Investigator, for a grant on District-School Collaboration Study (January 1999-January 2002). from the John D. and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation, for $1.3 Million., and Co-Principal Investigator, for a Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. grant of a half-million. I think this shows a considerable degree of acceptance in the profession. I've added the information to the article. DGG (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Assistant professor with publications list [1] that only seems to include 5 items that have been published so far. I don't see the grant makes so much difference to whether the subject currently meets WP:PROF or not? Espresso Addict 00:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Fails WP:PROF. I agree that being a lead investigator on a grant is not grounds for asserting notability in and of itself (smacks of inherited notability). Eusebeus 11:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral per information discovered by DGG. --Aarktica 20:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment about grants. lead investigator on a grant is normally the guy whose idea it is, and to whom the grant is awarded based on a peer review of his prior research. Federal grant in the US at least are always technically to the institution, as being the fiscally responsible party, but in practice they are to a person, almost always the director of the laboratory group. Large grants are large because they include support of other investigators; when they get to over $1 million or so, generally postdoctoral fellows as well as graduate students (though this varies from field to field). A grant by itself is not enough--the sort of grant to beginners of $20 or $30 thousand dollars for expenses is routine, not a sign of distinction or accepted reputation. I dont want to suggest a fixed amount for drawing the line, because it will depend on field. Another factor is time--a career investigator award in the US of 5 years or more goes to a very senior person indeed. All in all I said a week keep only, because I think this is the sort of grant where she's more the administrator than anything else. DGG (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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.