Talk:Sharon Ann Hunt
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In response to questions about notability: I picked her off a list of most-cited scientists who do not have a Wikipedia article =
editI am not sure how notability got questioned so fast, but this article was created in response to the request here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/Thomson-Reuters_most_cited_scientists#Missing_woman_scientists and it's my opinion that a doctor with 132 journal articles in an advanced area of medicine is notable, whether *I* exactly understand them all or not. Elinruby (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
more on notability
editThis woman was one of the chairs of a 2005 American Heart Association guideline update for treating chronic heart failure. (http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/112/12/e154.short)
Her journal articles have been cited almost 4000 times in the journal articles of other authors. I think that's notable; I just would be hard put to explain exactly what it *is* ;) especially since I have no idea what the practice guideline was before it was updated. I am way out of my field (IT) trying to help out. But I know notable when I see it. Elinruby (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Notability questioned again; please do not delete this article -- the lady is notable even if *I* cannot explain why exactly
editI created this article because it's on the list of "please help out by seeing that these highly-cited female scientists have pages" on the community portal. Unfortunately I don't have much background in cardiology, which is why I flagged it as needing attention from an expert. She chaired the committee that drew up the guidelines for heart transplants failure (see notes on talk page). I am pretty damn sure that's notable. Her journal articles have been cited thousands of times, if you check scholar.google.com. I just myself don't think I can explain her contributions very well. If you have any suggestions on how to recruit someone who can, I am all ears. Meanwhile, no, I do not think the article should be deleted by the right hand of Wikipedia -- the left hand seems to think that one should exist. Me, I am just a Wikignome who tries to help out.
I *did* add it to the to-do list of the cardiology task force this time; which apparently does not happen automatically when you flag an article. Who knows how active they are, but maybe that will do something.
- I think we should be all good. Anyone could renominate any article for deletion, but this one clearly passes now and isn't nominated for anything at the moment. I took off the notability and PROD tags, leaving only the expert tag since I'm not an expert. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)