Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Mower Provost

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. ✗plicit 13:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Mower Provost[edit]

[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)

I don't believe the subject meets either the WP:NPROF criteria or WP:GNG on her own. Only being an assistant professor, she doesn't ding point 5 or 6, and I don't believe her awards are sufficient to ding point 2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I wrote when accepting this as a draft in 2020, she clearly passes WP:PROF#C1 by having multiple heavily cited publications. Also the nomination statement is factually incorrect; she is an associate professor (tenured), not an assistant professor (untenured), although the job title is not very relevant for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Not an outstanding citation record among automatic emotion/speech analysis researchers, but sufficiently above the median currently and guaranteed to produce further impactful work in the future. JoelleJay (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI have added some of her activities on editorial board on the page. She is on several editorial boards including high impact factor journals which enters into WP:PROF#C8. But I am no expert in the field so happy to hear other opinions. Lainx (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her Google scholar page reports 4899 citations (pretty good but not extraordinary) and an h-index of 28 (more impressive). Associate professor is tenured but that's definitely not the same as full professor. It's possible the subject is a little WP:TOOSOON to be notable purely based on academic credentials. What pushed me over the edge to keep were searches that quickly turned up the multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject and her work that would establish notability for anyone, e.g., Michigan Daily, TechXplore and Slate. Msnicki (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think just about passes the threshold for notabilty, rather than being WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein passes WP:PROF#C1.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein and WP:PROF#C1 Salpynx (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes C1Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:57, 20 August 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.