Susana Vinga: Doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROF .  Might be WP:TOOSOON or WP:MILL .  Kj cheetham ( talk ) 20:28, 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 Portugal .  Kj cheetham ( talk ) 20:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Associate professor doing what professors do...  I don't find notability, or much of any sourcing we can use.  Primary sources are used for the article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed Delete and WP:TOOSOON .   I'd like to see lots and lots of researchers in Wikipedia, but the vast majority will never reach the bar of general notability, unfortunately.  -- User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 16:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science , Biology ,  and Computing .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The notability is mainly "local" (national prizes in Mathematics and from the University of Lisbon, as mentioned).  Main achievements in alignment-free sequence analysis and comparison (link to page), and internationally in 2% of highly-cited researchers (2021 and career) by "Stanford University has released its global list that represents the top 2% of Scientists in various disciplines, on 10-10-2022" - DOI: 10.17632/btchxktzyw.4) (not yet on the page).  193.136.100.230 ( talk ) 16:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I like that citation.   Thanks.  -- User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 16:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I did some looking into this data.  Vinga is listed in the main sub-category of "bioinformatics".   Based on her full career publication and citation record, the Stanford data places her at rank 91 out of 7,142 in this broad subfield; I believe this is a figure that supports her notability ... but need additional measures.  --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I think her citation record [41] is strong enough for WP:PROF#C1 .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 00:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] thanks - reviewing this ... -- User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] item G. in this Guideline states "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My opinion is not based on the number of works the subject has authored.  It is based on the number of times those works were cited.  Six publications with triple-digit citation counts (one with almost quadruple digits) is a good record, one that indicates that her works are having a substantial impact on other researchers in the area.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 02:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete an h-index of 29 alone (rather low in a highly cited field such as biology) does not denote "a significant impact in their scholarly discipline [...] as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." as the "independent reliable sources" part is missing.  No major award either, so I do not see any WP:NACADEMIC criteria being fulfilled.  Broc ( talk ) 15:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The "independent reliable sources" are the 4282 academic publications that cite hers.  That's what that phrase in that criterion means: many publications that cite the works of the subject.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, h = 29 is not impressive in her field.  To check, I looked at the data for another Portuguese informatician that I know (I won't give his name).  He is probably 15 to 20 years older (important, because everyone's h increases with age), but it's hard to tell, because her article doesn't say when she was born and we don't know how long ago the photo was taken.  Anyway, my informatician has a Google h = 60, and his most cited publication has 3800 citations.  Athel cb ( talk ) 09:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- per David Eppstein .  The h-index argument is convincing.  I'd like to see some kind of support for Broc 's claim that h-indices run high in Biology. Central and Adams ( talk ) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a well known fact, but here's an article [42] where it is stated "For Biology [...] very highly cited scientists have h ≈ 150". So in my opinion an academic with h-index of 29 in biology is not at all "highly cited", hence doesn't meet C1. Broc ( talk ) 21:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Broc , I don't even look at those things. If we cannot cite a specific instance of someone citing the work and proving its importance, what are we doing? Drmies ( talk ) 03:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Drmies I fully agree. Not one single reliable secondary sources describing the impact of the subject on her field of study has been brought up in this AfD. The only "keep" !votes entirely rely on the argument "she has many citations so she must be notable" and I wanted to show how this argument is faulty, as she is not a highly cited author in her field. Your argument still stand, and I agree with it: we do not want to host resumes of WP:MILL academics on Wikipedia. Broc ( talk ) 10:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The reason we have NPROF#C1 is that there may not be one single reliable secondary sources describing the impact of the subject on [their] field . Academic work can be quite significant before authors of the secondary lit catch on and this notability criterion is meant to account for that. Central and Adams ( talk ) 13:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Central and Adams , I am not at all convinced that that is the reason we have it. I think we have it because it's a thing that counts in some parts of academia at some points--in tenure and promotion. I had a look through the talk page archives of PROF, and what is obvious to me is (I'm summarizing from a few comments by editors like DGG and Randykitty --I cannot claim to have done a comprehensive survey) that any index is a rough guide (and that's still in PROF, at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics ), and that writing an article based on those metrics is, ahem, difficult. Plus, your argument is kind of contradictory. If a scholar is cited, then one should expect the citation to say something meaningful about the research or the scholar that was cited, unless, unless! we're just refbombing, like we do in certain disciplines (not mine). Having read quite a few sociology articles recently I'm even less infatuated with indices, and on top of that are the problems noted in various talk page discussions with Google Scholar. Drmies ( talk ) 15:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In the sciences authors are cited in research articles to acknowledge their original results, not to discuss the results or explain their meaning or impact. Those things are the province of expository writing rather than research. Scientists can have astonishing impacts on their field without being discussed in expository or other kinds of secondary writing. In the social sciences and humanities it's necessary to discuss these things in actual research because there's no epistemological consensus, but this doesn't happen in the sciences. No question that indicies are a rough guide, but I guess that's why we're having this discussion! Central and Adams ( talk ) 15:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you have a slightly optimistic view of the academic publishing industry. And I'm sorry, but about differing epistemologies leading to different kinds of consensus, I think you are wrong. Drmies ( talk ) 21:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I don't see an h-index argument--I see a citation, not an argument. I do see a counter argument to that claim. What I see is a resume without any secondary sources; primary/company links and Wikipedia articles don't count. As a BLP, it's so poorly verified that it should be sent back to draft space, and I do not see how this passes PROF, let alone the GNG. This shouldn't have been moved into mainspace. Drmies ( talk ) 17:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral . (Coming here after Drmies' ping).  I currently don't have the time to look into this in great detail, just marking a few points.  The citation record, as observed by David Epstein is more than solid.  On the other hand, that seems to be most of what we have for an article, as I find the awards less than impressive.  Looks like an "up-and-coming" scientist, but associate profs are not very often found notable yet.  If some independent sources would come up on which an article can be based, I'd ! vote "keep".  -- Randykitty ( talk ) 18:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Haha Randykitty , I figured you would say something along those lines--a position between your professional hard data and the requirements of secondary sourcing in the liberal arts way.  Thanks for stopping by!  Drmies ( talk ) 21:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  00:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Very, very strong h-index metric, which strongly indicates her importance to her field— WP:PROF#C1 .  Anwegmann ( talk ) 02:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 29 is not very, very strong.  Athel cb ( talk ) 10:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Very strong delete .  Sorry, but the claims very strong h-index are not verifiable.  I did the standard test of looking at the top people cited in the areas she lists in her Google Scholar page.  The lowest cited area is "System bioinformatics" where she is competitive and 10th on the list.  However, in her other areas she is not close to competitive.  Her awards are all minor or junior (we really should say not to include them and the Stanford/Elsevier lists).  Without significant acknowledgement of her by the wider community it is wP:TOOSOON .  A strong start, but not enough.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 22:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I'm trying one more relist even though the pool of editors wanting to comment on articles on academics in AFD is limited.  But I don't see a reconcilation or consensus here, either they meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#C1 or they don't.  Just as an aside, are articles for academics ever redirected to their institution in case they develop a more substantial profile in years to come?  I haven't seen that proposed but thought I'd throw that out as an ATD.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, because if the article on the institution includes a list of its professors, it would only be a list of the bluelinked professors.  So if we redirected, the article wouldn't mention the redirect target at all.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 00:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per David Eppstein, especially "Six publications with triple-digit citation counts" a substantial count that is enough to pass NPROF criteria in her field.  -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, but "Six publications with triple-digit citation counts" is nothing special.  The other Portuguese scientist I mentioned has 30.  Athel cb ( talk ) 10:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Eppstein.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 09:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Weak keep .  Passes #C1 of WP:NPROF to my eyes.  I don't usually recommend keeping associate professors (which is the "weak" part) but the sheer number of citations of her work alone is impressive, as is the number of citations that her most-cited papers have received.  As I keep saying, passing one criterion is enough to meet the standard.  Qflib ( talk ) 20:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Procedural relist to get this lost AfD back in the system Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 02:56, 31 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus