Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreja Gomboc

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. Significant arguments leaning in favor of Keep, however valid concerns raised by multiple users arguing for deletion of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andreja Gomboc[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacking notability per WP:PROF. Web of Science lists 39 articles between 1996 and 2010. There is one with 92 citation, but also with 30+ co-authors where she is in the middle. All others have max 38 cites, again with plenty of co-authors and her name in the middle. Total number of citations is 492, which is rather low. She might be notable for the Slovenian wiki, but not for English one. Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As at least per 3rd item of criteria in WP:PROF she is among others a member of the European Astronomical Society and International Astronomical Union. Then she is an active researcher in the field of astrophysics, high energy physics, relativity and the Gaia mission. --xJaM (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EAS membership is fee based. IAU members are elected, but usually on a country basis, i.e. she might well be notable nationally and thus be an IAU member, this says nothing about her international notability. Materialscientist (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If memberships of EAS and IAU are not enough, let me continue. In November 2007 she received award for research project of the year, which is awarded by British newspaper The Times Higher Education. Reviewers had awarded exceptional team work and results of measuring polarisation of optical afterglows, which were published in Science.[1] Among others she is also a coauthor of article in Nature. I suggest extending article (if it is not yet suitable regarding notability), and not deleting it. Primož Trubar for instance is actually also not 'internationally notable', but en wp has its article. Can you evaluate more precisely (or just by hand with an eye view) statement that she is in the middle...? Is this fact perhaps due to nature of this kind of astronomical/astrophysical work? --xJaM (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about that Nature article above, in the nomination. Extra large collaborations are not uncommon, and usually crucial contributors are in front (those who done most work) and at the tail (heads of laboratories who organized measurements). She is in the middle, same for the Science article you mentioned above (it is not much sited, I don't know why). Materialscientist (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you perhaps any suggestions for extending (and of course not deleting) the article? I can add some latest (although anonymous) additions from Slovene wp (which currently unfortunatelly have inline external links) - but better if I wait for outcome of this deletion proposal. --xJaM (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much on GS. Early career researcher. Not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
For another Prekmurian - sinologist Jana S. Roškar there are 16 enries on GS ([2]). Should we then also propose deletion for articles of some other Prekmurians? --xJaM (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, unsourced BLP, appears to fail WP:PROF. Article may be keepable if evidence of notability is found. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This deletion discussion is clearly based on prejudical nationalism and I therefore oppose upmost harshly. She is a promising scientist known to a wide international scientistic circle and already noted for her research work, even though she is not in her scientistic and researching prime yet. @Materialscientist: If you want to delete the articles, which really need deletion, try rather some low-profile young actors and actresses. I'll definitely back you there. Cheers to whereever --Jambornik (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Nationalism. I thought it is a science debate. Materialscientist (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We might call this kind of 'nationalism' "academic nationalism". For instance, at least two prominent Slovene mathematicians had to go through AfD, Pisanski and little later Marušič - I do belive that without any particular reasons. I think I understand Jambornik. For professor Marušič there was debate about the Zois Price, which is the premier science prize in Slovenia. If someone never hear of it, this does not mean that it does not exist. --xJaM (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that it exists, but the question is-is it notable? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: Google Scholar should not be relevant for determining person's notability/importance (especially for non-English speakers; there are other local tools). Even I (as a high school student) got some entries, comparing to some notable Slovene philosophers that haven't got any entry. --Smihael (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, once you oppose, provide us with such sources please. She is not a philosopher and not ancient. In her field all achievements are widely published. Materialscientist (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, putting aside any concerns about citations, she hasn't done or discovered anything yet. Encyclopedia articles need to be more than a CV. Abductive (reasoning) 19:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Discovered anything yet' - this is very relative statement. As English article is mainly written by users who do not speak English as mother tongue, I believe it is more then just a CV - and as I've written some line above, some additions can be transfered from Slovene article. Perhaps even you and me can not define at all what is in these fields discoverable. --xJaM (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...planned ESA mission, GAIA, which will measure...", "The space probe is to be launched ... in November 2012." Then it will take years to gather and analyze the data, and then more years to figure out if she has personally discovered anything. Abductive (reasoning) 07:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From page of HST we can see that this activity began already with Oberth in 1923. So there is a span of 67 years, when STS-31 mission finally launched this space telescope into Earth's orbit. We might also say that Oberth was one crazy dreamer, not to mention Spitzer. --xJaM (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking back at past decisions on these academic AfD pages I find that to satisfy WP:Prof #1, 500-1000 citations in the scientific literature have usually been needed with an h index of greater than 15. With only 45 cites and an h index of 3 from GS the present subject comes nowhere near these figures and does not satisfy any other the other categories of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC). Web of Science has higher statistics but still not enough. What about Scopus? It is to be noted that assistant professors are rarely found to be notable on the English Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
DELETE: no non-trivial reliable sources to verify information in the article and establish notability. The best independent source I could find was this, but that's not enough. Protector of Wiki (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give me one example of 'non-trivial reliable source' elsewhere of other academics, so we can figure it out what do you mean? One such source is stated, which can be also reached from site at the FMF UL. Source you've given quotes wp. --xJaM (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any reliable source, independent of the subject, which would verify one of the points #1 to #9 in WP:PROF. For example, this source establishes #2 for Frances E. Allen. And sources that quote WP are never acceptable. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't notice the source I linked quoted Wikipedia. That just makes your argument all the weaker.
The page from FMF UL is VERY TRIVIAL coverage. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Protector of Wiki: You probably mean later added page (in Notes) and not her homepage from FMF UL (in External links) that I was refering to? I do not know if it is trivial, but I've just used it to confirm that she is assistant professor at FMF, not to cover anything else. Yes, this is perhaps small paradox, if we neglect that you didn't notice that, that one 'independent source' summarizes from wp, and now we are voting to delete.
@Radagast3: This source is equally reliable as your example (unfortunately in Slovene), that she received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. (#2 in WP:PROF) - Prekmurje research award 2002, which is of national level class. But the other question is then if this national level can do the trick.
I can also debate about #4, as she is young educator in (locally not so well known and covered) fields of astrophysics and astronomy, together that she was national coordinator of IYA2009 for Slovenia, of course again just at national level, and not at international one. On January 2010 she also held lecture (titled Universe and we) in Slovenian National Assembly within project Znanje žanje (Knowledge reaps), which is I believe a great honour, and probably goes into #7. Also, article was written already on 2004-06-23, and it took over 6 years then for voting of deleting it. Strange indeed, isn't it. --xJaM (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"We"? Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Universe and we. Here are some nice photos from that event. --xJaM (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ups. 'Official translation' is The Universe and us according to lecture presentation --xJaM (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to xJaM, being national coordinator of IYA2009 for Slovenia does not satisfy WP:PROF #4, nor does giving a lecture satisfy #7 (see the "Notes" section of WP:PROF). The best claim to notability is the "Pomurska Research Award". However, from WP:PROF, "For the purposes of Criterion 2, major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc, always qualify under Criterion 2. Some lesser significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige also can be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g. the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc." The "Pomurska Research Award" does not seem to measure up to this standard. As to the delay in nominating the article, Wikipedia's policies have changed since 2004. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per xJaM--Deviator13 08:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would User:Deviator13, who is an administrator on the Slovenian Wikipedia, care to say under which category of WP:Prof? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Especially #2, if we literally follow the national level, but that is my opinion.--Deviator13 09:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply but, as noted by User:Radagast3, this award does not seem to be sufficiently notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Per Criterion 7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." She had a lecture in the National Assembly of Slovenia regarding astronomy in January 2010, she regularly publishes articles in the most read Slovenian popular science astronomical magazine Spika, she was a national coordinator for Slovenia in the International Year of Astronomy (2009), organized several highly visited exhibitions in this capacity, etc. Overall, she has greatly contributed to the popularization of astronomy in Slovenia and was bestowed the Prometheus of Science award by the Slovenian Scientific Foundation in 2009 for "exceptional achievements in organizing the communication of diverse astronomical contents". --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand that link correctly, the "Prometheus of Science" award was shared between all 8 members of the IYA Organising Committee. However, I can see the case for Criterion #7, if sources can be found for the claim that she "greatly contributed to the popularization of astronomy in Slovenia." Certainly, if she's widely known in Slovenia for her popularization of astronomy, then she's notable, in my opinion. However, that notability would need to be demonstrated by sources (either English or Slovenian), e.g. references to the exhibitions, news coverage, etc. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & expand Per #7 for WP:PROF. Time should be given to expand and improve upon the article given these issues pointed out. QuAz GaA 02:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to expand and improve the article irrespective of result of this voting. --xJaM (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of evidence of passing any of the criteria of WP:PROF. We've seen criteria #2 and #7 discussed in this AfD, but the only clear published evidence of that that I can see is the "Prometheus of Science" award, and she is only the recipient of 1/8 of 1/8 of 1/4 of the award (there are four categories, eight winning entries in her category, and eight co-recipients for her entry). This seems a bit too slim for my taste, and the other WP:PROF criteria seem even farther out of reach. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, Jennifer Hudson won 1/24th of an Oscar? 24 categories, single recipient... Gomboc doesn't appear that notable, but, well, the discussion is kinda hopeless now. --JaRoad (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2010 (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.