- 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. ✗plicit 23:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nathalie de Leon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Assistant prof who has only some early career awards. Not convinced passes WP:NPROF. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is an extremely high-citation field. I haven't finished running Scopus citation metrics yet but one of her coauthors is a 2020 PhD graduate whose top 5 papers (out of 15!) are already cited 299, 153, 96, 92, and 62 times. The "average professor" will certainly have orders of magnitude more credentials than that, and we don't even want articles on the average professor. JoelleJay (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are the Scopus metrics for Dr. de Leon and her 88 coauthors with more than 15 papers (which includes PhD students, techs, post-docs, and professors; if we were to restrict it to people who have held a faculty position all values would be much much higher).
- Total citations: avg: 7854, median: 3008, de Leon: 2844.
- Total papers: avg: 136, med: 69, dL: 47.
- h-index: avg: 33, med: 23, dL: 21.
- Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 831, med: 514, dL: 331. 2nd: avg: 497, med: 321, dL: 299. 3rd: avg: 388, med: 234, dL: 282. 4th: avg: 318, med: 187, dL: 261. 5th: avg: 271, med: 155, dL: 242. JoelleJay (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sloan Fellowship is early career, which is specifically excluded from meeting C2. JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sloan Fellowships are given to 126 early career researchers, which does not satisfy NPROF#2. Her publications have racked up quite a few citations, with some articles being very well cited. However, on all of these publications she's a minor author, never last or even first author. Too soon. --Randykitty (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Middle coauthor on a paper with a large number of coauthors doesn't convince me of so much, and as JoelleJay points out, this is a very high citation field. Once you get past the massively coauthors papers, its down to 150 or so GS citations (again, in a very high citation field). So I think it's WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF C1, even if the subject has a solid start. No sign of other notability, in particular the early career awards do not meet WP:NPROF C2. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Assistant Profs are hardly ever notable, the early career awards dont provide notability for WP:NPROF, her citations are high but not surprising given her field and as pointed out before, she has a lot of middle author publications, with her WP article not clearly demonstrating what *her* impact on the field really is, which is required by WP:NPROF#1. Basically this is WP:TOOSOON but down the line an article may well be warranted. --hroest 15:37, 2 May 2021 (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.