Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Enright Jerger

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 speedy keep. per WP:SNOW as there is already no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Enright Jerger[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Natalie Enright Jerger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a lack of notability established in this article. As well, most sources are from her employer. No independent sources that establish notability.  DiscantX 02:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 02:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 02:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 02:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 02:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 02:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 02:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 02:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 02:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 02:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 02:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability: Natalie Enright Jerger is an ACM Distinguished Member which places her at the top of the Computer Science Field. In particular "The ACM Distinguished Member program recognizes up to 10 percent of ACM worldwide membership based on professional experience as well as significant achievements in the computing field."

The references to her achievements include the ACM page (for ACM distinguished member), and the CRA-W page for her Borg Early Career Award. I have added a reference to the Sloan Research page for her Sloan Research Fellowship. This is an extremely prestigious scientific funding/award, which honored only 126 scientists across all fields in 2015 when she received hers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmartonosi (talk • contribs) 04:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don't think ACM Distinguished Member is enough for notability by itself. It's below the level that would establish notability through WP:PROF#C3, ACM Fellow. But her citation record on Google scholar [1] is enough to convince me of a pass of #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also as Percy Edward Hart Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Toronto [2] she passes #C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Would a h-index of 24 be sufficent in this highly cited field? She fails GNG by my search (primary sources and a press release) and PROF is uncertain. I agree with David around the ACM Distinguished Member situation but there is really only one paper of note in there and it was co-authored with 4 others. Also two papers of 200-odd citiations appear to be I'd guess different versions of each other. Unsure about this. J947 (c), at 06:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now due to a pass of C5. J947 (c), at 18:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As David Eppstein has noted, she meets WP:PROF#C5, as she holds a named chair appointment (which does not seem to have been added to the article yet). RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:PROF#C5. XOR'easter (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:PROF#C5. gidonb (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this resume. Nothing in this article properly substantiates academic notability for an article. Trillfendi (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as obvious pass of WP:PROF#C5, since she verifiably holds "a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research". Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The scope and breadth of sources supports the claim of notability as a professor / scientist as described and included in the article. Alansohn (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:PROF#C5. User:shrodger —Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Snow keep, this can probably be closed early based on above. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:57, 25 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Natalie_Enright_Jerger&oldid=885170329"