Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cora Uhlemann

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cora Uhlemann

[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)

Finished PhD in 2015, and seems to have fairly rapidly climbed the ranks to professor in March 2024 according to the article. However I'm not seeing how WP:NPROF is met. Seems like WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Science. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Off to a good start but WP:Too soon as yet. Try again in five years. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Uhlemann was an Assistant professor (Lecturer) between 2020 and 2022 and a full professor (Reader) since 2023. My additional article revisions: I specified in the article what she is known for and added her work as deputy-lead of a research group, co-lead of an ESA working package, several elected positions at the German Physical Society, including her role as electred member to the DPG Council. Furthermore, I highlighted several selected key papers and awards. Ulrikelovesscience (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find coverage for this person, Gnews only has three hits, one as a "women in STEM" feature from a university. Seems to be a primary source. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The place you ought to look is the scholar link, but it's still not enough for me. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. She has been on a panel discussion about Women in Science at the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting 2020 (https://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/videos/38708/debate), gave a short plenary talk at the Nobel Laureate Meeting 2016 as part of the Bavarian Evening and appeared in the Universe Unravelled series of the discovery channel (https://www.discoveryplus.com/gb/show/universe-unravelled-with-the-stephen-hawking-centre, see S1E17). There have been several features including a press release (https://from.ncl.ac.uk/euclid-mission-mapping-the-universe), a mention in a Scientific American article (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/europes-euclid-space-telescope-is-launching-a-new-era-in-studies-of-the-dark-universe/), interviews (https://www.eucapt.org/post/community-profile-cora-uhlemann, in the online version of the German Sueddeutsche Zeitung https://www.jetzt.de/job/wie-viel-verdient-eine-physikerin7,https://www.ja.tum.de/ja/wir/08-21-cora-uhlemann/) CosmoBuff (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Interviews and quotes are typically primary sources and not suitable for estbalishing notabality (as per WP:PSTS). Some of the other sources help towards WP:GNG, but need to be more than just mentions. Panel discussions and giving talks seems like WP:MILL, though those mentioned do seem fairly high profile. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- h-index of 21 shows that she's highly cited enough to meet WP:Prof#C1. Central and Adams (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think NPROF#1 is satisfied by h-index here. WP:NPROF cautions that citation metrics "are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied". In my opinion, they are mostly useful in distinguishing obvious cases, i.e. when they are very low or very high. Here h-index of ~20 is fine for an early career physicist, but not particularly high, and does not by itself establish notability. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She is off to a good start, but all her awards are junior ones, not major recognition in the field; as stated above WP:TOOSOON. An h-index of 21 is certainly not notable in her field.

Ldm1954 (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uhlemann received an ERC Starting Grant, one of Europe's most prestigious and competitive grants, with a grant volume of Euro 1.5M https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101075919 Ulrikelovesscience (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Uhlemann has been invited to several conferences and workshops over the last few years. I edited the Wikipedia text accordingly. Ulrikelovesscience (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You already !voted, so I'm striking your keep. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there independant coverage about the grant? I don't see how just winning grants is inherently grounds for notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the additional "keep" - I am not so familiar with the process. An ERC grant is usually highlighted by the respective university since it increases its prestige. Here you can find the statement by Uni Bielefeld: https://www.uni-bielefeld.de/forschung/drittmittelprofil/eu/erc/ Ulrikelovesscience (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. That statement isn't independant though, as that's the organisation she'll be working at. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability comment. I am sorry, but being invited to conferences and workshops is not a viable proof for notability as everyone who is a decent scientist gets such invites. Similarly being on panels, unless she was appearing in front of the House of Commons or similar. Also, everyone gets grants so this is also not a valid proof of notability. The ERC grant is, to quote the page, for talented early-career scientist who has already produced excellent supervised work, is ready to work independently and shows potential to be a research leader. As such it is on a par with NSF CAREER and the various similar DOE and DOD starter grants. Important for an early career scientist, but not high profile. We have to be consistent. If her grants and invited talks make her notable then every science faculty member at an R1 university in the US would automatically get a Wikipedia page when they get tenure. IMHO the bar for WP:NPROF has to be higher. My vote remains a Strong Delete and revisit in a few years. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional edits to provide more proof I linked the article to Uhlemann's Wikidata (which I edited as well) so that her scientific output is now better validated by various databases (see Authority control databases section at the bottom of the article). I apologize for not linking the article to the databases before. Ulrikelovesscience (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two triple-digit-citation first-author publications would be a borderline pass of WP:PROF#C1 for me, but with a middle-position authorship I think it's not enough. Being a panelist is not an indication of notability. None of the awards or memberships listed in the article rise to the level of WP:PROF notability. And we cannot count sources like the Cambridge "Women in STEM" or "Meet the 2023 Simons Emmy Noether Fellows" towards WP:GNG, because they are from her workplaces and therefore non-independent. She's on a strong track and will likely become notable by our standards in a few years but I don't think she's there yet. It doesn't really help that the article has been puffed up with detailed listings of primary-sourced minor accomplishments, making any actual notability hard to discern among all the chaff. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As WP:TOOSOON. Subject is likely to become notable in few years, but currently does not satisfy any of the NPROF criteria. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. However, in order to continue the discussion, please provide supporting arguments for your statement. It's important to note that the discussion was relisted because there were not enough sufficient arguments provided. Ulrikelovesscience (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I don't find any of the 'keep' votes persuasive, in the sense that they would establish that any of the NPROF criteria are fulfilled. I already commented on the h-index above. A regular professor position (or being a co-lead of a research group) is not enough, and the DPG positions do not really advance notability. The ERC starting grant is quite prestigious, but it is still an early career grant, and not sufficient for criterion #1. Few public appearances are not sufficient for criterion #7. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.