User talk:Mkharlamova

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marianna Kharlamova (November 17)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Timtrent were:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Marianna Kharlamova and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Marianna Kharlamova, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Marianna_Kharlamova Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timtrent&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Marianna_Kharlamova reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 17:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Marianna Kharlamova has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission as follows:
 * 1) Fortunately, we do not have to decide on the actual scientific value of people's contributions; this is something reserved for appointment committees of universities and similar bodies.  We judge by what external sources say about them. For scientists, the external sources that mater are other people in the field, and the way we determine what they think is by how much they cite the person's publications, and whether they give highly prestigeous senior positions and major awards and similar factors which we can see and evaluate, as explained in WP:PROF.  The usual factor is citations Looking at google scholar, her citation figures as of now are 76, 60, 54, 41, 35, 34 ...,  The highest figure is, as it often is, for a review article, and they are cited more than others. The absolute level of  citations in a field depend on the people working in the field, but in most active fields of the experimental physical science we would expect at least one paper and preferably two with at least 100 citations. (in experimental biomedicine, the expectations are twice that). We can if necessary make a benchmark by looking at the  citations other researchers  in the filed--checking for those publishing on single walled nanotubes, we find people wit the highest citations of 5025, 3441,  2223,  1877, 1201, 586, 490 ..., which is another order of magnitude. This confirms she does not meet the WP  standards for citations. Nor would we expect her to--if we look at the auxiliary standard of holding a distinguished professorship, she is still only a post-doc, and does not even have her first permanent appointment. If we look for major awards, she has only student awards. If we look for editor-in-chief of major journals, she is only a special issue editor and a reviewer. She is not a member of a national academy of sciences; she is not the president of a national society.
 * 2) If she were notable, the draft would need extensive editing. It's a CV, where by convention one includes everything. It shows the typical emphasis on minor material when there's nothing major, it makes no attempt to follow our format or style, it duplicates material. I could edit it quickly enough, by removing the 80% that doesn't belong, by correcting the English, and adding the citation figures. but nothing I or anyone could do could show notability at this point in her career.
 * 3) What's more, it's an autobiography.  DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Marianna Kharlamova


Hello, Mkharlamova. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Marianna Kharlamova".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)