Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Prata


 * 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. ✗ plicit  09:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Diana Prata

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet WP:PROF. No paper with over 100 citations. No notable awards.  DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added an additional sentence in the first para under "Career" to clarify funding awards. The number of citations seems to be a very arbitrary definition of notability, as it depends on the number of other people working in the sector who are likely to quote papers. In my case I have published a book with over 800 citations and others with over 250, but I would NOT consider myself as notable as Prata. This is a distinguished scientist who has held positions in important universities/colleges in Portugal and the UK, and I am rather surprised that her notability is being challenged. Roundtheworld (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep Meets WP:PROF no. 7 "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" for her work as a commentator on Portuguese news services. Furius (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Strongly fails NPROF C1 in comparison to her 125 coauthors with 12+ papers, per Scopus:
 * Total citations: avg: 10673, med: 3321, Prata: 1615.
 * Total papers: avg: 163, med: 71, P: 49.
 * h-index: avg: 38, med: 28, P: 22.
 * Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 1172, med: 408, P: 224. 2nd: avg: 629, med: 297, P: 128. 3rd: avg: 441, med: 232, P: 94. 4th: avg: 359, med: 189, P: 90. 5th: avg: 302, med: 158, P: 73.
 * However, given the time spread of articles using her as an expert voice, interviewing her, and profiling her research, I believe she does meet C7. These are most of the news articles I got from Google: her appearance on a podcast (Dec 2020, probably doesn't count toward notability), an interview by RTP (Nov 2019, generally interviews do not count toward notability), several quotes from her as an expert in a Notícias Magazine article (Oct 2020, partial count toward C7), an interview in DN Life (Apr 2020, maybe partial count, as it does give somewhat of a biographical introduction to her), another DN article related to her oxytocin work (Jan 2020, partial count? quoted/interviewed? as an expert), a DN article on an expert panel she was on (Nov 2018, maybe partial toward C7), a brief quote from her as an expert in an Observador article (Aug 2017, not significant enough for C7), another Notícias article substantially covering her and several other neuroscientists' research (Mar 2017, SIGCOV), and her expert opinion as part of another panel reported by Observador (Nov 2015, maybe partial toward C7). JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep as per JoelleJay's comments on activities beyond citations. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep as explained above. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:58, 14 May 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.