Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irina Zhuravleva


 * 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. Per blprequest marginal notability and subject request deletion Spartaz Humbug! 18:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Irina Zhuravleva

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am the article subject and I regard myself as a non-notable, private person. I want this article to be deleted as I am not as notable as described in the article and this misrepresentation can damage my career. Ziv27123 (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: I see no reason to not keep this article as it is fully sourced. Also, seems like a WP:COI from this user.   Oshawott 12  ==== Talk to me!  02:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep at least until the nominator uses WP:OTRS to verify their identity; we have no way to know whether the nominator is who they say they are without further evidence. At present, the nomination provides no WP:DELREASON. Moreover, there is a reasonable case to be made for WP:NPROF given Scholar cites. I'm not sure how named assistant professorships should be treated for purposes of WP:NPROF. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The named designations for Assistant Professorships are always temporary and they don't qualify for WP:NPROF. The nominator does indicate privacy concerns as a reason for wanting the page deleted, which is a standard reason for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE requests. However, we do indeed need the nominator's identity confirmed first via a verified WP:OTRS ticket, before this nomination can be treated as a bona fide WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE request. Nsk92 (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 *  Weak Delete (providing source checks out). WP:NPROF would not be satisfied but WP:NPROF might, but only marginally. I do not see any single-author cited publications, so evidence of independent achievement is sparse. This is often a problem with people who work in large groups. The BLP was created by a self-confessed novice editor, who possibly may not have consulted the subject, as is often the case, and has given offence. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC).
 * Comment I'm always sorry to see articles on scientists go, but I wouldn't want Wikipedia to get in the way of a career, either. I'm sure that created the page in good faith and without ill intent. It may help if  could provide a little more detail on how the article is misrepresentative. I'm just guessing, but based on the long author lists of the cited papers, it may be that the text of the article gives too much credit to Dr. Zhuravleva alone for work done collaboratively. If that's the case, further input on this point might be helpful for  going forward. Cheers, XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sure too that created the page in good faith and without ill intent. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC).
 * and I appreciate your understanding. I like writing biographies of scientists and always try to be as truthful and precise as I can. JimenaAstro (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I apologise to if she feels that the page I created is misrepresentative of her work, and to the Wikipedia community for the trouble. I created the page in good faith out of appreciation for Dr. Zhuravleva's work. I came across a couple of her papers during my studies and I found them remarkable. There was absolutely no ill intent on my side and I second page deletion if she wants that. JimenaAstro (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Citations for first-author papers are 220, 86, 56, 49, ... enough for me (in conjunction with the highly-cited group work) for a borderline pass of WP:PROF. As discussed above, named assistant professorships aren't indicative of notability. So if this were a normal AfD I would probably side for a weak keep, but I think it's borderline enough that if the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE can be verified through OTRS then we should honor it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there any indication that order of authorship is significant in this field? Order is mixed in other papers. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC).
 * The indication is that the authors are non-alphabetical and her name starts with a Z. Additionally, checking the 220-citation paper in Nature found that she is marked as contact author, not merely first in the list. I have seen suggestions that fields that historically have alphabetized author lists and a default assumption of equal contributions for authors (for instance mathematics and theoretical computer science) switch to a randomized name ordering but I think only the economists are actually doing that . —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Practices of authorship order are so varied that no conclusions can be drawn form them. A junior member of the team is sometimes appointed contact author to give them administrative experience and reduce the workload of senior members. Again, no conclusions can be drawn here. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC).


 * Delete It seems like the subject is on the borderline of having sufficient notability to warrant an article.  If she herself prefers to have the article deleted, then I think it makes sense to abide by her wishes.PopePompus (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: as articulated above, this article already walks the knife-edge of WP:NPROF, most of the citations are directly to papers, and it seems (pending OTRS confirmation) that the subject of the article would prefer it gone. No objection here. jp×g 17:04, 28 November 2020 (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.