Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagna O. Constenla


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Dagna O. Constenla

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This researcher seems to be an impressive person, but I don't see any evidence that she meets the notability requirements in general or for academics. SchreiberBike talk 21:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. A couple of well-cited articles on GS. That is all. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete. This person works in several sub-specialties in medicine that are associated with very high reference/citation rates. She is early-in-career, but has nevertheless published quite a few papers. Her h-index is 13 (WoS). I agree with Xxan that this is not sufficient for a medical researcher to be counted as "notable", otherwise a large fraction of this enormous workforce would likewise be notable at this threshold. It's WP:TOSOON. If she continues on her current trajectory, she will certainly have a WP article in the future. Agricola44 (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep She has made significant contributions to the field. What is wrong with having articles on a large portion of medical researchers. We do it for football players and actors, we should do it for medical researchers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What is wrong? What is wrong is that she doesn't yet pass any category of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC).
 * This is a false comparison because the academic world does not work the same. Much of her higher citation work appears to have been published while she was a graduate student (see WoS) – you'll notice that she is neither the 1st author nor the "senior author" (typically the head of the lab) on those. Though still not a correct "sports" metaphor, it would be more accurate to say that such a person was still in the minor leagues and is not recognized as "pro" until they make their own contributions to the research literature (as head of a lab, publish single-author papers, etc). You'll also notice that, while she does have first/single author papers, they are all more recent (mostly last half-dozen years) and don't have many citations. This is why I, and I believe Xxan too, argued that according to WP:PROF her record does not indicate notability at the present time, but likely will in the future. Agricola44 (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2014 (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.