Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belinda Ferrari

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 Keep. Nomination withdrawn to avoid wasting further community time. It appears my interpretation of WP:PROF#C1 was off of the community consensus. Thanks to all for the input (non-admin closure) Ajpolino (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belinda Ferrari[edit]

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

Early-career researcher; appears to have just been granted tenure in the past year. Is on a few more-cited papers but is not the senior author on any. Doesn't yet meet WP:NPROF. It's just WP:TOOSOON for now. Ajpolino (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 17 years out from her Ph.D. is not "early-career". Being early in one's career is not in itself a reason for deletion. The "not senior author on any" claim is mistaken; she is first author on her second-most-cited paper, "Microcolony cultivation on a soil substrate membrane system selects for previously uncultured soil bacteria". She has attracted significant media attention including a story in Newsweek for her research on antarctic air-eating bacteria [1] [2] [3]; although this work is too new to have attracted many academic citations yet, I think it says something that it was published in Nature [4]; she is last author, and the media stories call her "senior author". And in general, her citation counts on Google Scholar look above threshold for WP:PROF#C1 to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I rescued this from speedy in 2016 after creation as part of an editathon because I believed her citation record was sufficient to meet WP:PROF, and on a second look I hold to that opinion. The fascinating subsequent Nature paper on which she is corresponding author, per David Eppstein, tends to confirm that. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citation record is adequate to satisfy WP:Prof#C1 for a highly cited field. WP:Prof does not need to be dumbed-down in order to include academics of this level. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Here is yet another popular source impressed and interested by her work. [5] This took 1 minute to find using Google. I think our readers deserve a chance to learn more about this researcher. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with David Eppstein and Xxanthippe that Ferrari's contributions satisfy WP:PROF#C1. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2018 (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.