Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Achúcarro


 * 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 Keep (SNOW) Experienced editors are unanimously saying Keep. There appears to be no support for this proposed deletion. Victuallers (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Ana Achúcarro

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails against WP:NPROF, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. The sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage of a WP:Run-of-the-mill academic - and mostly self-published (likely blurbs written by the subject) or primary sources. There are no independent, reliable, secondary sources which provide a rationale for notability. The article is written like a CV or resume. There are only two non-disambiguation incoming article-space links, neither of which is reliably sourced or show relevance. Since the article's creator has removed cleanup tags, I take it to mean they think this article is ready to be fully-evaluated here. -- Netoholic @ 02:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Did you know that women academics are twice as likely to be nominated for deletion as you would expect from the proportion of women among Wikipedia biographies? This seems to be a case in point. She has huge citation counts, easily passing WP:PROF, and is a member of Academia Europaea, passing #C3. The source in the article from the NWO (the Dutch scientific funding agency) with her name in the title is in-depth, reliable, and independent, so that nomination claim is false too. This, this, and this also look like usable sources. Bad nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – I typed "Ana Achucarro" into Google Scholar and the first result was a paper she wrote with 1,000+ cites, the next one is 330+, the next is 280+, etc. Mendeley reports 3,250+ citations and an h-index of 26 (is that good?). The sources David posts above look like they could be WP:SIGCOV, and then reading that she is a Member of the Academia Europaea (by invitation only and follows a rigorous peer review selection process) seems to clinch it. Leviv&thinsp;ich  06:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Citation counts in are relation to the work... the science... NOT the person. They do not show that this person is notable to an encyclopedic level. The 1000 citation count work in particular was completed in 1986 - prior to her PhD completion. The co-author was her mentor Paul Townsend (its often the case that a student is given first-billing on publications in order to jump-start their scholarly careers). Its no indication of this person's notability - its routine. -- Netoholic @  07:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's all true, take those 1,000 citations out, and there are still 2,250 left (per Mendeley). How many are needed to meet NPROF 1 (or are any number of citations enough)? (That's not a rhetorical question: I have little experience arguing NPROF 1 at AfDs. But I am drafting a BLP where one of the notability claims is that the subject is one of the most-cited scholars in her field, so I'm curious what people think about that.) Leviv&thinsp;ich 07:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The correct GS search string is author:a-achucarro. Your search missed at least "Super p-branes", Phys Lett B 1987, 346 cites. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * What about the €2.3 million grant she was recently awarded? https://www.d-itp.nl/shared-content/news/news/2014/00/2014-fom-vrije-programmas.html There’s no way you can attribute that to her supervisor > 30 years ago. Jesswade88 (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What exact number of citations makes someone automatically notable for "significant impact"? IF you're considering what number is correct, you're performing WP:OR. It should be secondary sources that point out their high citation counts or other evidence... not Wikipedian opinion. -- Netoholic @  07:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see grounds for speedy (though it may WP:SNOW) unless nom withdraws. Agree with nominator on the contents of the article and that sourcing of this article, in terms of WP:BLPPRIMARY and RS issues, leaves a lot to be desired (hint - sometimes less is more - using a few high-quality refs is better than a large number of low-quality ones). However, the subject clearly passes WP:NACADEMIC(1) - per google scholar (not you need to search without the diacritic ú as many papers only have u - and you get significant less results than ú) - our subject has a h-index of around 26. Her two top cited papers (on which she is the first named author) have 1,087 and 333 citations respectively - this has her comfortably passing NPROF which is one of the very few SNGs that actually overrides GNG (which she possibly does not pass per my very quick check - Eppstein's links above seem to be interviews with the subject herself - which do not establish SIGCOV - however this is all moot given NPROF(1)). Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is WP:OR for a Wikipedian to use citation counts to establish whether a person satisfies WP:NACADEMIC#1 for "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Secondary sources are what should telling us if they have made a "significant impact", not some arbitrary citation count we think should prove it. -- Netoholic @  07:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We routinely evaluate PROF#1 by citations. She also possibly passes PROF#3 by being a member of Member of the Academia Europaea as Eppstein points out - which requires less editoral judgement than PROF#1. It is also clear she holds (and held) fairly senior academic appointments (though not a chair - so not sufficient by itself). As WP:NACADEMIC is presently construed, secondary sources are not required and primary sources (e.g. published journal papers (a RS) and citations thereof (in other RSes) are sufficient for establishing notability under PROF. This notability guideline may or may not be misguided (I personally, am much more concerned with WP:NFOOTY at the moment - for which I'm trying to raise the bar) - however the place to argue that is elsewhere. Icewhiz (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC
 * It would be redundant for WP:NACADEMIC to specifically call for secondary sources, since WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:GNG, and No original research already says to base articles on secondary sources. IF we can't find any independent, reliable sources, no matter now many citations or namedrops they have, its not demonstrated notability. -- Netoholic @ 08:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * keep I made this page. She’s highly cited and holds a professorship at an impressive university. There are fewer biographies written about her to cite as she is a woman and european, but the sources here are sufficient, and, as mentioned above, she’s an invited member of a selective learned society. Jesswade88 (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * keep Her works are highly cited, it passed NACADEMIC#1. Do note, academics do not have a lot of IS to generated WP:SIGCOV like other BLP especially those of in the field entertainment or sports. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If she is highly-cited, finding a secondary source that says that should be trivially easy. Wikipedian's deciding some arbitrary threshold of citations is WP:OR. -- Netoholic @ 08:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep In addition to the good points made by others, note that WP:ROUTINE relates to events not people and WP:Run-of-the-mill is an essay and so is just opinion with no significant force. The nomination is therefore reaching, contrary to WP:FORCEDINTERPRET. Andrew D. (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with David Eppstein that this is a bad nomination, for the reasons he gives. --NSH001 (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.