Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katya Rodríguez-Vázquez

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katya Rodríguez-Vázquez[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)

Non-notable academic. Her IEEE page only shows 2 publications with 9 citations [1]. Sources used include her resume and her work bio, appears more like a LinkedIn biography than a wiki article. Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article creator, per WP:PROF#C3. We only just today closed an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Alagón Cano, in which there was overwhelming support for a keep, with most participants (including me) basing that opinion primarily on the fact that that he is a member of the Mexican Academy of Sciences. Rodríguez-Vázquez is also a member of the Mexican Academy of Sciences; in fact, that's why I created the article on her. (The Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz Recognition prevents that from being the sole reason for notability but I don't think it would be enough by itself.) The standards for admission to the Mexican Academy are lower than they would be in a first world country but they are still very selective among the much larger number of academics in Mexico (I think in terms of absolute number of members they are similar to the US National Academy of Sciences). Incidentally, although she has published under the names "Katya Rodríguez-Vázquez" and "K. Rodríguez-Vázquez", her better-cited publications appear to be under "Katya Rodríguez" (I didn't try "K. Rodríguez" because I imagine there would be huge numbers of false positives): 145 citations on Google Scholar for "Identifying the structure of nonlinear dynamic systems using multiobjective genetic programming" (as first author), 112 for "Classification of DNA microarrays using artificial neural networks and ABC algorithm", 79 for "Multiobjective genetic programming: A nonlinear system identification application" (as first author), etc. This would not be enough to convince me of notability just based on the numbers, but it gives a borderline case for WP:PROF#C1 and suggests that your searches for publications were looking in the wrong place. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:PROF based on being a member of the Mexican Academy of Sciences. TJMSmith (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz Recognition gives an arguable WP:ANYBIO pass, plus all the rest makes me comfortable to !vote keep. CT55555(talk) 15:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I buy the Mexican Academy of Sciences as a pass of WP:NPROF C3. Comment that although the subject here doesn't have a Google Scholar profile (and has a name that can be tricky to search for), the citations on Scopus are reasonably solid, and help support MAS as the kind of fellowship meeting C3. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be sufficient coverage to meet GNG.--Bexaendos (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2023 (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.