Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Goldschmidt

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 delete. ✗plicit 11:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Goldschmidt[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)

Assistant prof, under 1000 paper cites according to Google Scholar, won an early career award in 2022. Seems like WP:TOOSOON to me. Happy to be proved wrong though. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete early career awards are not the things notability is made of. Does not pass any of our guidelines on academic notability as of yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this seems WP:TOOSOON, the publications are not widely cited and I do not find other coverage to suggest she could meet WP:GNG. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked her listed field topics in G-scholar. For "quantum networking" she is #10 in terms of citations but that category seems to be little used or very new. For "quantum photonics" she is #80, and the top 10 in that list are cited ~20,000-35,000 times to her 950. These categories are not pre-defined in G-S as far as I can tell, but in any case she does not (yet) appear to be a star in her field. Lamona (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I wouldn't put too much credence in how well-placed she is in these categories. My impression is that a large fraction of Google Scholar profile holders choose their keywords to trade off specificity for high placement. So the people confident enough to use "quantum optics" rather than "quantum photonics" tend to be heavier hitters, and the ones who just list "quantum physics" even heavier. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, WP:TOOSOON. Two papers with over 100 citations each is a good start, but in a high-citation field it's not enough to convince me of WP:PROF#C1. The NSF Faculty Early Career Development award is also not the sort of thing that conveys notability. And publishing in Nature is good, but it's the impact of and citations to the publications that confer notability, not the publications themselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON, as discussed above. Alex-h (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per David Eppstein. Cabrils (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2022 (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.