Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beatrice B. Magee


 * 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) ansh 666 02:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Beatrice B. Magee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

GNews found zero hits for either "Beatrice Magee" or "BeBe Magee". The only hits I'm getting are for sources already in the draft (and all but one are her own publications) or name drops (donations to charity etc). PROF is not demonstrated, nor is GNG. Primefac (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete does not pass our notability guidelines for professors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete No coverage in independent reliable sources, which the sources in the article are not. Fails WP:PROF. GeoffreyT2000  ( talk,  contribs ) 01:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has been listed in article rescue squadron. Important scientific discovery(s) attributed to subject. TeeVeeed (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. TeeVeeed (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * trying to improve this article by finding more independent sources. Such as Medical Mycology in the United States: A Historical Analysis (1894–1996)
 * By Ana Victoria Espinell-Ingroff where she is credited for her discoverys. I don't know if it would be appropriate to condense the bibliography section or not. Also there is/was a problem with the subject's name. And other help comments about what would improve this article would be appreiciated-thank youTeeVeeed (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Being listed at the ARS is not a reason to keep. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

*Delete. I find a GS h-index of 19? when searching for "B B McGee" which, in a very highly cited field, does not quite pass WP:Prof. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC).
 * Comment Is it possible that this would be a stronger article if it was about both BeBe and Paul Magee? They seem to have worked as a team for quite a long time. Her work seems highly cited, also. What do others think? Please ping me, or I'll miss the discussion! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. There are 45 references; but the first does not mention the subject, and the other 44 were all written or co-written by hr. Maproom (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, She and her husband and their Institute for Candida Experimentation at the University of Minnesota played an important role in the sequencing of the genome of Candida albicans. There are independent references that talk about their role and their key papers (sometimes I can actually get into jstor, etc). StarryGrandma (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to get too pedantic, but she's been a researcher since the '60s. The TOOSOON window has probably passed ;) Primefac (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I find a GS h-index of 28 when searching for "B B McGee" which, in a very highly cited field albeit with many coauthors, passes WP:Prof. Full publication list needs to be deleted. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC).
 * That is an interesting point, given that she was principal author on only 7 articles, and there only about that many (not in the same group) where there are <3 editors. Primefac (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By Principal author I assume you mean first on the list of authors. There has never been consensus here about author order because it varies greatly between fields of research and institutions. I note that there are no single-author papers. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC).
 * You make a good point. The last two fields I worked in went by primary author, but now that I think about it some list alphabetically regardless of project role. Primefac (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Some in reverse alphabetical order, some put the guiding spirit at the end of the list, some, based on a student PhD, put the student's name first regardless of the power of the student's contribution to the project. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC).
 * Comment: h-index or other indices which indicate citations are not reliable and are per Prof of limited use and should be "approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted". Studies on their use with women show an underreporting of citations due to author name variants and the fact that male scientists routinely cite other male scientists, while women scientists cite both men and women's work. SusunW (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The citation data are the only thing that make the subject notable, so if you think the data are not reliable you will presumably vote for delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC).


 * Keep. I believe that the subject has written enough articles and done enough significant work in the field that the subject is notable. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , the job of an academic is to do research and write papers. If they've written 50 papers over their tenure, it just means that they're doing their job. That's why we need secondary sources that write about the subject, and why we have metrics like WP:PROF. Primefac (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Read the discussion above. There are well over a thousand sources on the scholar link, although it seems that an editor above does not accept their validity. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Meets WP:PROF, as shown by the citation record 11 papers with over 100 citations each -- normally just one such paper is enoguh to show notability. h value without further analysis is not sufficient,because one needs to look at the actual distribution  h =28 in non-notable if there are 28 papers all with 28 refs each, but when almost half of them are over 100 refs, its another matter entirely. Even for a very highly cited field; even for multiple authorships., WP:PROF is not WP:GNG -- it is the papers by the person themselves that show the notability. , it is the job of a scientist to do research; those that do it notably well are notable. Just like authors: it's their job to write books, or politicians, or athletes , or anyone else. everyone who is notable is notable because they have been notable in their field of life. (the only except are the "celebrities" who can be thought of as  "notable for being notable." without havingactually ever done anything significant.  DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   16:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: I concur with over claim of significance and also with  and  over notability and adding to all that, a piece of trivia which I believe may have been overlooked per the information provided here which says "She is known nationally and internationally for performing one of the worlds first karyotypes of Candida albicans using pulsed field gel electrophoresis" - just adding to something that has already been justified. TopCipher (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. 11 papers with >100 citations each in Google scholar (several as first author) is enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2017 (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.