Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laure Zanna: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:18, 15 August 2019

Laure Zanna

[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)

No yet notable. The citations are too low for notability by WP:PROF. : 59, 58, 53. The prize is an early career award, meaning someone who is hoped will be notable someday, a sort of junior varsity. There are no independent sources toshow notability in any other respect either. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not yet meet the notability criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, might fall just short of the WP:NPROF criteria (for now), but there are clearly enough sources for a decent length article that meets the core content policies, so I'm not seeing a strong reason to delete. – Joe (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite creative, I might say. ∯WBG^converse 19:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The notability guideline exists to help us write good encyclopaedia articles, not delete them because they don't meet arbitrary criteria. – Joe (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ∯WBG^converse 19:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Wikipedia Academic Notability criteria [1]. Her work has received considerable coverage outside of the bubble of academia. Jesswade88 (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof#C1 on basis of GS citations in this very highly cited field. WP:Too soon now, but matters may have changed in five years time. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- What would count as enough citations given her 2014 paper in Ocean Modelling is 12 times more cited than the average for the field? Richard Nevell (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

looking back at academic AfDs over the past ten years, the impression that emerges is that for an average-cited field the cut-off is around 1000 citations or an h-index of around 15. For a highly-cited field, such as climate change, these numbers would be much higher; for a low-cited field such as theology or philosophy much lower. The procedure is to compare like with like. The subject's cites on GS [1] are 664 cites and an h-index of 16, so her statistics are only marginal, even for an average-cited field and there is not a pass of WP:NACADEMIC#1. If you want to show notability here, find other mainstream climate scientists with BIOs on Wikipedia having an equal or lower citation record. The average cites per paper in most fields are very low and any substantially cited paper will have cites much above average. Anyway, the specific paper you refer to[2] has two authors, so she gets only half the credit for it. Having said all this, her citations on GS are growing strongly and, if she continues as she is, she will pass WP:Prof#C1 in a few years.

At present WP:TOO SOON. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Adequate evidence that the subject passes WP:NACADEMIC #1 and #3. Andrew D. (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is WP:NACADEMIC #3 passed? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

She is a fellow of an Oxford college and Oxford is ranked by some as the foremost university in the world. Andrew D. (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That does not remotely pass WP:Prof#C3 which refers to FRS, NAS and other National academies. A Fellowship of an Oxbridge college has never been accepted as passing WP:Prof#C3. If you think so please quote precedents. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

The Royal Society was a spinoff from Wadham College which is clearly an elite academic body. She sits at its top table and this seems adequate recognition of her status. As we also have #1, we have enough for a pass as guidelines are not hard policies or rigid rules but are merely indicative. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the British system, the term "fellow" can have any of a widely-varying collection of meanings. Some checking indicates a title of "David Richards Fellow and Tutor in Physics", which seems to be a tutorial fellow...namely, a professor who is responsible for teaching undergrads in their own areas of specialty. This is decidedly not a designation that satisfies PROF c1 or c3. Agricola44 (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. H-index is around 15 - which yes - is marginal for the field - but is also fairly high for a young scholar. Furthermore - it is a very solid 15 - evenly spread out, article number 20 has 10 citations and she's getting cited at an extremely fast rising pace (2016 - 50, 2017 - ~100, 2018 - 160. 2019 - 160 to date) - which is a likely indication that this h-index will probably rise (e.g. recent 2017 papers are at 13, 13, 11, and 10 citations - so likely they'll push past 15 soon given they're getting cited at ~5/year so far) - it doesn't take a big crystal ball here to a h-index of around 20 soon. When we add to this that a google-news search shows she's getting quote quite a bit in mainstream press (e.g. New York Times, Guardian, Popular Mechanics, etc.) - you also see a reach here beyond academia. Does she clearly pass WP:NPROF#1? No, but she's close. Does she pass WP:NPROF#7? Possibly. Does she pass GNG? Probably not (but hard to tell given all the times she's quoted - need to sift through and see if she's profile as well). However the ensemble here as a whole - very close to our notability threshold (possibly over), and on a clearly rising trajectory - it per WP:NOTPAPER worth preserving. Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be a good-faith BLP that is TOOSOON. XXan recounted our long-standing framework used to eval PROFs and, in a very hot, high-activity field like climate change, her record in this context is decidedly average. This seems to be grudgingly admitted by some of the above "keeps" that are rhetorically straining to retain this one. To get an idea of clear notability in this area, I would point to someone like Natalie Mahowald (who does not even have a WP BLP – I have added this to my TODO list). Note that it would be unusual for someone working in this field to not have a few interviews here and there. Trajectory seems good, but, as XXan observed, it's toosoon. Agricola44 (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 ::::That does not remotely pass [[WP:Prof#C3]] which refers to FRS, NAS and other National academies. A Fellowship of an Oxbridge college has never been accepted as passing [[WP:Prof#C3]]. If you think so please quote precedents. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 09:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC).
 ::::: The Royal Society was a spinoff from Wadham College which is clearly an elite academic body.  She sits at its top table and this seems adequate recognition of her status.  As we also have #1, we have enough for a pass as guidelines are not hard policies or rigid rules but are merely indicative.  My !vote stands. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew D.]] ([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 10:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
+::::::'''Comment'''. In the British system, the term "fellow" can have any of a widely-varying collection of meanings. Some checking indicates a title of "David Richards Fellow and Tutor in Physics", which seems to be a ''tutorial fellow''...namely, a professor who is responsible for teaching undergrads in their own areas of specialty. This is decidedly ''not'' a designation that satisfies PROF c1 or c3. [[User:Agricola44|Agricola44]] ([[User talk:Agricola44|talk]]) 15:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * '''Weak Keep'''. H-index is around 15 - which yes - is marginal for the field - but is also fairly high for a young scholar. Furthermore - it is a very solid 15 - evenly spread out, article number 20 has 10 citations and she's getting cited at an extremely fast rising pace (2016 - 50, 2017 - ~100, 2018 - 160. 2019 - 160 to date) - which is a likely indication that this h-index will probably rise (e.g. recent 2017 papers are at 13, 13, 11, and 10 citations - so likely they'll push past 15 soon given they're getting cited at ~5/year so far) - it doesn't take a big crystal ball here to a h-index of around 20 soon. When we add to this that a google-news search shows she's getting quote quite a bit in mainstream press (e.g. New York Times, Guardian, Popular Mechanics, etc.) - you also see a reach here beyond academia. Does she clearly pass [[WP:NPROF]]#1? No, but she's close. Does she pass [[WP:NPROF]]#7? Possibly. Does she pass GNG? Probably not (but hard to tell given all the times she's quoted - need to sift through and see if she's profile as well). However the ensemble here as a whole - very close to our notability threshold (possibly over), and on a clearly rising trajectory - it per [[WP:NOTPAPER]] worth preserving. [[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 14:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * '''Delete'''. This seems to be a good-faith BLP that is TOOSOON. XXan recounted our long-standing framework used to eval PROFs and, in a very hot, high-activity field like climate change, her record in this context is decidedly average. This seems to be grudgingly admitted by some of the above "keeps" that are rhetorically straining to retain this one. To get an idea of clear notability in this area, I would point to someone like [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=vN3IGogAAAAJ&hl=en Natalie Mahowald] (who does not even have a WP BLP &ndash; I have added this to my TODO list). Note that it would be unusual for someone working in this field to ''not'' have a few interviews here and there. Trajectory seems good, but, as XXan observed, it's toosoon. [[User:Agricola44|Agricola44]] ([[User talk:Agricola44|talk]]) 15:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)