Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ani Nenkova


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Ani Nenkova

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject fails GNG, ANYBIO, and NPROF. Almost all the sourcing I could find is from what she wrote or schools where she has been affiliated; nothing independent. She has no named chair and no notable fellowships. As we know, NPROF does not posit hard numbers for notability purposes so her number of publications makes no objective difference. These sorts of pieces are almost always promotional, written by undisclosed CoI accounts. It should never have been accepted through AfC. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment It's not the number of publications that matters, but whether they have been influential. In that regard, an h-index of 49 with 28 publications having more than 100 citations is not too shabby. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So this is your own subjective judgement? I see no cut-off in PROF for an h-index value. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. H-index of nearly 50, including highly cited work in which she is the first author (e.g. her scholar profile shows the first three with her as the first author and with 631, 617, and 524 citation respectively). User:Chris troutman, the unfounded COI allegations here are off color. The article is not overly promotional, and looking at the creator's other articles ones sees Ellen Riloff and Mona Diab with the common thread being female academics in Computational linguistics but not any organization (e.g. company or university) one would consider as flags for COI.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 18:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a high-citation field but I think the citation record is good enough for WP:PROF nevertheless. Citation order appears to be meaningful for her publications and she's first on many of the top-cited ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:Prof with stunning citation record in highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC).
 * Keep as per Eostrix  NHCLS (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. clearly above average (but not outstanding) citation record for the field with 20+ papers with 100+ citations. --hroest 18:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep None of the reasons to devalue the citation record (e.g., difficulty of assigning credit amid giant collaborations) seem to apply. Her h-index is higher than 22 out of the 26 coauthors listed on Google Scholar, definitely putting her on the upside. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to meet WP:NPROF on citations. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets NPROF thanks to plenty of citations.Jackattack1597 (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2021 (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.