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 no consensus. Sandstein 10:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mika Tosca[edit]

Mika Tosca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional article. Meets neither WP:PROF nor WP:GNG. Not yet notable as an academic--assistant professor, highest citations to her work: 25, 24, 24, 22, so clearly not influential yet in her field, and does not meet the standard for WP:PROF

The references are all: either to her own work, to summaries of her work, to non-reliable or non-independent web sites, to local promotional new notices None are to the necessary substantial 3rd party reliable sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices, to meet GNG. .

These are two independent standards--it's possible for someone not yet meeting WP:PROF to get sufficient substantial coverage to meet GNG, but that's not the case here. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep DGG:I don't know where you are getting those citations numbers from, but according to Google Scholar she has over 450 and her top ones are 103, 100, 80, 27. I would say close to 500 citations is notable. Are there any guidelines to state how many citations is needed to be considered notable? I don't think so. According to WP:PROF: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." So if we follow the guidelines then she meets notability. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. While Expertwikiguy is correct on the numbers for citation counts, climate science appears to be an extremely high citation field, where thousands of citations to an author appears to be fairly common. Given this, I think it's still a bit WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this 2012 PhD. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have to agree with the assessment of the cites: those are not impressive citation numbers in most disciplines (I like to note that I'm topping with several 100+ papers, and I'm a completely non-notable lazy postdoc), and especially not in climate science. I don't see an in here for NPROF criteria, and the GNG coverage is insufficient on its own. TOOSOON would be my opinion as well. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ADD: change to weak keep. The NPROF issue holds, but it looks to me as if there may now be sufficient public engagement references to make a stab at GNG. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agreed with Russ Woodroofe and Elmidae. Also, the research she is best known/cited for is not in the same field as her professorship. I'd argue if NPROF is the criteria to be met, her eminence as a professor at SAIC is very much TOOSOON, while for NACADEMIC and GNG the sourcing is insufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Citations not yet enough for this very high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Point of clarification. Hello! I'm not the original author of this page, but I am a college faculty member who led a class this semester in which students profiled scientists of underrepresented backgrounds who they believed merited a biography page on wikipedia; one of my students wrote and submitted this page as their project. (I should note that I am new to wikipedia, so I'm not sure that I'm allowed to begin this bullet with "point of clarification" - thanks for your patience with any transgressions and feel free to correct me.) With regards to this nomination for deletion, I would perhaps argue that this person's notability could be somewhat falling through the cracks of #1 and #7 on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). My view is that covering one of the highest profile trans climate scientists in the US makes this biography notable on its own, though I understand that it doesn't necessary map to clear-cut notability along one of the 8 possible criteria. In terms of #1, I agree that this person's climate work alone is probably WP:TOOSOON but that her niche as a "climate scientist who now does academic work with artists" is cutting-edge and novel in her field and thus "notable" in the sense that it is on the vanguard. Unique and interdisciplinary science and science communication isn't necessarily quantified by one of the 8 notability requirements directly, but we also have evidence that discounting more unconventional forms of academic success/outreach bias Wikipedia against scientists from underrepresented groups. Thanks for reading, and looking forward to learning more! Csoconn (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That sounds like you're saying keep to me! -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ha! I wasn't sure if I was allowed to vote since I have a potential conflict-of-interest (supervised college project through which this page was written). Don't want to step on any toes, but, yes, I personally find this scientist sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Csoconn (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Csoconn: To have the greatest possible influence on the discussion, you might read the notability guidelines WP:BASIC, WP:NPROF, and WP:NCREATIVE, and make an argument as to why Tosca meets one them. WP:THREE is also good advice here. The admin who closes the deletion discussion will evaluate the arguments, not just count votes. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for those links, @Russ Woodroofe:. I had read the notability guidelines you linked but was unfamiliar with WP:THREE. I'll argue that this bio merits entry into wikipedia because this academic is has a high profile for pursuing interdisciplinary climate science-art collaborations (e.g., is a climate science communicator) AND because of her role as a high-profile as a trans climate scientist, who has been quoted in articles looking at queer rights in science. For those reasons, I think the three most important citations for this article are as follows: [1], [2] and [3], with [4] being a close fourth. Csoconn (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fix the current citation for the PBS profile of Tosca, "Climate Scientist Swaps NASA for School of the Art Institute," to include a readable link from an affiliate. Initial research also shows broader coverage than is currently included in the article, e.g. coverage by phys.org; "Transcending Science: Can Artists Help Scientists Save the World?" by Tosca at EOS; a profile of Tosca by Medill Reports; public engagement in The Scientist and Buzzfeed. Beccaynr (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for spotting these and for adding additional links pointing to outreach efforts! I also added one more, [5], which you mentioned but I don't think made it in yet. Csoconn (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also wanted to mention WP:BASIC, because with the additions that have now happened, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." There are now two in-depth sources (PBS and Medill Reports) that focus on Tosca in the Career section, and the PBS profile offers commentary on her career shift, which seems to help support WP:AUTHOR/WP:CREATIVE for becoming "known for originating a significant new concept." In the newly-created Advocacy section, it also appears that Tosca is not WP:LOWPROFILE, because she has given "one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication" and has "participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for ... a cause." Beccaynr (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although I myself voted KEEP, I want to bring to your attention that this editor may have a WP:COI, because she kept reverting my edit of the name addition "Michael Tosca" which I added as an additional birthname. 2 of the sources are using this name. Please feel free to discuss in the TALK page why this should not be added.Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As I noted on the article's Talk page in response to the discussion, I do not have a WP:COI, and reverted the edits due to my interpretation of MOS:DEADNAME and WP:BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Whilst I agree citations alone are definitely insufficient to pass WP:NPROF, I think science communication work pushes the article over the threshold to notability. As an aside, we probably need a better guideline for science communicators one day... -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NJOURNALIST (which is WP:NAUTHOR) does seem to fit science communicators? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Dr. Tosca meets requirements for notability in terms of outreach on science communication, science-art initiatives, and as a vocal advocate for Trans issues in STEM, academia, and media. This is evidenced by her large followings on social media, many interview requests as an expert for different media outlets, including Eos (an Earth Science academic magazine) and Buzzfeed. Mahe2020 (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC) — Mahe2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete not even close to meeting any actual notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This scientist is notable for her work in advocacy and science communication. She does have a notable following on social media and is a well known trans climate scientist. She is well-known enough to be invited to speak on many major news platforms, as well as notable academic institutions. I would argue that since there aren't clear guidelines on the number of citations it takes to make one "notable", close to 500 seems as notable a number as any. Murha744 (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The number of citations needed to lean towards a pass of WP:Prof#C1 varies from field to field because publications patterns vary. For a low citation field like philosophy 500 cites might suffice. The field here is very highly cited and many more would be needed. Notability will have to be found elsewhere than WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

User:Xxanthippe Could you please share where in the guidelines it states this?? or is this how you personally feel? Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you review records of academic AfDs of past years to evaluate consensus. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The 2nd bullet point of WP:Prof#C1 talks about citation counts being different in different fields. A random postdoc or lecturer could fairly easily get 500-1000 cites after a few years in some fields, and wouldn't be notable at all simply on that basis. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It sounds like there is a good consensus the subject does not pass WP:PROF which I agree with. For GNG, six sources have come up. Two are non-independent, one is a passing mention, one seems plausible and two might be, but are extremely local in ways that might not be initially apparent. The EOS article is written by the subject and the coverage at phys.org is a mirror of a press release put out by NASA when the subject was employed by the organization. Buzzfeed quotes the subject as an example of 1,600 different scientists who signed an open letter. The Scientist has some more in depth coverage of the subject and should probably count towards GNG. Medhill is a student paper at Northwestern 15 blocks from SIAC where the subject works. The PBS profile seems to actually an interview with the local PBS affiliate WTTW (the author, Paul Caine, works for WTTW and that's the only place I could find the story). To me it comes down to whether the local TV interview and/or student article from Northwestern are enough, in combination with the coverage in The Scientist, to satisfy GNG. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the Buzzfeed article, that of 1,600 scientists very few are likely to be trans scientists suggests to me that Tosca's voice is a notable one in the context of the article (and larger conversation about LGBTQ+ individuals in STEM). Csoconn (talk)
• Delete Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. KidAd talk 22:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added more sources to the article in support of WP:GNG and WP:BASIC notability, and to help show that Tosca is not WP:LOWPROFILE, including additional scheduled interviews. Beccaynr (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2020 (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.