Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesca Verones (2nd nomination)

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. The deletion argument is not quite established and a little more time is no bad thing in a marginal case like this. If there is no improvement in 6m time than another afd might reach a stronger conclusion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Verones[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)

2nd nomination. As painful as it is to say, she fails WP:ACADEMIC as it stands right now. Probably too soon. Under 2,000 citations and associate professor just does not cut it. Not enough independent coverage to merit inclusion under GNG either. PK650 (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Three publications with over 100 citations each make a borderline case for WP:PROF#C1, and the Laudise medal makes a borderline case for #C2 (borderline because although it is international and not a student award, it is aimed at younger researchers). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I lament to say her high citation number for those articles is probably due to her colleagues Mark A. J. Huijbregts and Manuele Margni. "Quantifying land use impacts on biodiversity: combining species–area models and vulnerability indicators" we could consider, yes; but then again, that would be the one article. As for Laudise, how can we gauge its relevance? I think it would in fact cement the notion of TOOSOON, being for efforts by a researcher under 36 years, i.e. a sort of "nudge, keep doing this work and you might make it" sort of award. PK650 (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Even if there wasn't an issue with the citations being a bit of a WP:INHERIT issue with the co-authors, a couple 100 citations papers doesn't really satisfy WP:PROF#C1. This is pretty run of the mill, nor is there a case really made that this passing C2 either. If that award alone was going to satisfy notability requirements, it would need be a pretty solid case. What we see of that award so far doesn't really fit the guideline either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think if it is borderline and the case cant be made and there is consensus that is probably WP:TOOSOON then it must be delete, if there is any doubt. I think it is a case of Force majeure. I think she will be back, this time next year or later, but it needs to be under her own steam and notable enough to satisfy WP:PROF with no doubt.scope_creep^Talk 15:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree she will likely become notable in the near future, with a few more journal articles under her belt and another recognition/post. PK650 (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also agree this is likely a WP:TOOSOON case. Using citation counts is always a very weak metric for notability, though 2,000 citations in this field is decent for an assistant prof. That said, GNG should rule the roost, and not something much more arbitrary like saying 2k citations is high or low. Those metrics should instead only be used show a researcher is an outlier and obviously justified for inclusion. In terms of GNG, I'm not seeing the independent secondary coverage that would lay out the case of notability or content to support it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG does not have any higher priority than WP:PROF. They are both Wikipedia guidelines. Why do you think the one that is not about professors should take priority over the one that does? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never said anything like that. This doesn't satisfy either WP:PROF where my rationale was grounded or the more GNG-related portions of it (i.e., significant secondary coverage) compared to things like citation metrics. The take-home either way without worrying about which link is used is that from an academic standpoint, this professor hasn't demonstrated significant notability. Most things discussed for this BLP have been pretty run of the mill. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per David Eppstein's argument that there is a borderline case for two of the WP:PROF criteria. XOR'easter (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I follow David Eppstein and XOR'easter's arguments. I'm pretty unconvinced by the early career award, however; I also note that two of the three high-citation papers have a very high number of coauthors, and that the top-cited one is a review article ~~(so not the subject's contributions to the world of ideas, per WP:NPROF)~~. Still looks WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that an influential review article is still a contribution to academic thought, just as an influential textbook would be. They codify how scholars think of the history of their subject; they help draw the line between remembered and forgotten. XOR'easter (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't discount it entirely, and I'll strike out that part of what I wrote as unfair. My point is that I don't think that a review article with 17 authors and a moderate-for-a-review-article number of citations much helps demonstrate notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per David Eppstein. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Large number of coauthors on published papers does not allow assessment of the independent contributions of this early career researcher in a high cited field: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2019 (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.