Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelly Flagel (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. Notability of the subject according to WP:NPROF is too borderline for a strong consensus to form at this time. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shelly Flagel[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)

Article has only primary sources, searches found nothing better. Doesn’t seem to meet WP:PROF Neiltonks (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For C1 considerations only: I calculated the Scopus citation metrics for Dr. Flagel and her 78 coauthors, as well as the most recent 45 of her top collaborator's coauthors, who had more than 10 papers. Total citations: average: 5810, median: 1537, Flagel: 3398. Total papers: avg: 98, med: 42, F: 52. h-index: avg: 28, med: 19, F: 25. Highest citation: avg: 527, med: 272, F: 557. Average citations per top 5 papers: avg: 295, med: 149, F: 300. She seems around average in her field, although if the "average professor test" is what she needs to beat then the 10 paper threshold is much too low and her stats would very likely be around the median or lower. JoelleJay (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the "average professor test", but this also does not take into account time spent in science. Should we rather compare her to peers who are at a similar career stage, since many of her co-authors will simlpy have a longer track record. --hroest 17:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hroest, that's why I looked at the 45 most recent coauthors of her top collaborator, rather than all of them or the 45 on his highest-cited papers. There are 70 professors among the collaborators, but 32 of them are associate or assistant, so longevity is less of a concern. My original stats also include plenty of PhD students, postdocs, senior research assistants, techs, and people who stopped publishing and went into industry. The stats if I look at just the 70 collaborators who are any kind of professor are:

Extended content

Total citations: avg: 8852, F: 3398. Total papers: avg: 148, F: 52. h-index: avg: 38, F: 25. Average citations per top 5 papers: 1st: avg: 732, F: 557. 2nd: avg: 440, F: 292. 3rd: 341, F: 228. 4th: avg: 288, F: 223. 5th: avg: 250, F: 202.
Looking at just the 38 who are full professors: TC: avg: 14081, F: 3398. TP: avg: 229, F: 52. HI: avg: 53, F: 25. 1st: avg: 983, F: 557. 2nd: avg: 600, F: 292. 3rd: avg: 479, F: 228. 4th: avg: 417, F: 223. 5th: avg: 359, F: 202.

Basically, I don't think the metrics are skewed too much by long track records. JoelleJay (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in general I would agree with a WP:TOOSOON and she does not pass WP:NPROF#1 but after this recent discussion it is hard to argue why we should delete this article. She is an associate professor at a top tier institution with a good publication record and over 10 papers with 100+ citations in a high citation field. --hroest 17:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The more coathuors, the easier it is to prepare and publish a paper, and have co-authors cite each other's papers, as a group. Notability has an important criteria of contributions, scientific merits in this case, and so far I only see the arguments of citations and her use of grad students. Professors often have this amount of publication activities, that's what they are paid for, so allowing this not very informative profile (copied and pasted from the University's website) will invite millions of other profiles. If we want to avoid it, the page should be deleted; if we don't mind it, the page can stay Norm21 (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norm21 I totally agree and that is the reason we have WP:NPROF and the analysis from JoelleJay basically confirms that she is an "average" professor so far without any really outstanding achievements that would be unexpected at her career stage. I agree with your two scenarios and according to current NPROF#1 she is not notable, however I am pointing to a recent discussion where a consensus was formed around much younger and less accomplished professor. I have not decided on how to vote yet, so far I am just collecting arguments pro and con. Unfortunately I dont know enough about her field to form an informed decision about her contribution and the only thing I have to go for is her citation count. --hroest 21:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Trying to decide WP:NPROF on just citation numbers is always highly unsatisfactory, because we have no firm thresholds there. In this case the cites seem "okay" to me but there's nothing else whatsoever to contribute to notability (elected positions, awards, secondary coverage etc.) so I'm leaning towards Nay here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae I did some more digging, see below. For me this just makes her pass the bar. --hroest 20:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I found some more coverage of her, such as Scientific American, she is in some sort of leadership role in the ACNP which is a relevant professional association and she won A.E. BENNETT RESEARCH AWARD – Basic from SOBP which may or may not be notable since its an "early career" award, which often do not convey notability. Overall: reasonable citations for her career stage, some general coverage of her work in SA and at least one award and leadership roles; seems to be close to the border but for me she passes. --hroest 20:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep citations added showing her research influence beyond the academic community, in science communication to 'lay' readers, agree close to border but for me it is a pass.Kaybeesquared (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:44, 26 March 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.