Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanna Masingila


 * 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. v/r - TP 20:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Joanna_Masingila

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As far as I can tell this person created the article about themselves using no citations and nobody, other than the person herself, has ever edited this page. There are no references or sources to establish notability within the field of mathematics education. Thevandaley (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thevandaley (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The subject clearly fails WP:PROF, and there is no indication of why this person would otherwise pass the general notability guideline.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Question. Doesn't the position of Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University qualify as notable by WP:PROF criterion 5? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say not as this criterion was designed for named chairs that are occupied by one person until they retire. Two of these Meredith professorships are created each year and each is held for only three years. So far there have been over 30 people have held them: . Qwfp (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I debated the "Meredith Professor" designation too, but in checking the tangibles found much less than I expected based on that title. Her CV is enormous, running 12 full pages of publications alone. However, what the databases say is appreciably less impressive. WoS shows only 3 papers with 8 total citations (h-index 1). WorldCat shows various books, most of which are not widely held, with the exception of "Teachers engaged in research" with an intermediate 185 holdings. I see a Fulbright, but I'm not sure how much this counts toward WP:PROF, given that there are 8 or 9K of these per year. No obvious sources outside of what is found in faculty web pages and blogs. Agricola44 (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Keep to counteract our systematic bias against professors of education (and, for that matter, most of the other female-dominated professions) Syracuse is a research university of the highest quality. she's been the advisor for 13 PhD theses. This amounts to distinction as an educator. `  DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Understandably well-intentioned David, but with all due respect, what you're advocating here is essentially "WP social engineering". As far as I'm aware, there's nothing in any of the official notability guidelines regarding the number of PhDs graduated (certainly not in WP:PROF), or any other related activity (students advised, etc). Moreover, that argument has never even been advanced in the academic's AfD discussions as long as I can remember. I wanted to keep this one as well, as a matter of fact for very similar reasons that you cite. Unfortunately, it appears that that would require us to violate policy. My prediction is that, with such few !votes, your "keep" will trigger "no consensus" default keep, but that will mean this article will have the proverbial "asterisk" of being here by virtue of having been held to a lower standard. Socially redeeming though it may be, I think this sort of subjectivity doesn't belong in an Encyclopedia. Apologies for prolixity, Agricola44 (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC).


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

 Delete clearly does not demonstrate any notability, no independent reliable sources available to demonstrate the standards required for inclusion in Wikipedia.--UnQuébécois (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. GS shows 392 cites with an h-index of 10. Could be a weak keep on WP:Prof in a low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC).
 * I get more hits searching my own name on Google Search than her? Does that make me notable?--UnQuébécois (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends on your subject area. If it is theology it would, if it is biology it wouldn't. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC).
 * I would point out that there are professors in the education sector that WP recognizes as notable that do have publication and citation statistics that are comparable to other "higher citation" fields. For example, Michael Apple has ~750 WoS citations on 89 papers (the GS numbers are presumably much higher, I haven't checked). Agricola44 (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Thanks, I was taking the subject area to be mathematics, but that might not be appropriate. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Sorry. I assumed that since she's in the school of education, that we were talking about "education". However, I think that the argument from the perspective of mathematics holds too. It is easy to find extremely highly cited math people on WP, though I don't know what the "average" might be. My assumption has always been that the variation in publication/citation norms among fields is how the loose rules-of-thumb of either an h-index somewhere in the 10-15 neighborhood or greater, OR a cumulative number of citations of at least a few hundred to satisfy WP:PROF #1 developed. (The "book holdings" metric seems, in my experience, to be still kind of vague.) My only concern is that there not be a perception that this article, if kept, was a result of social engineering, because I think that image is extremely anathema to WP being considered a reliable, objective source by the public at large. Agricola44 (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC).
 * According to google, her h-index is 7. This is simply not enough on numerical grounds, unless evidence can be definitively produced that citation numbers in mathematics education are dramatically lower than other areas of mathematics.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On the data you supply the h-index is 11. Probably not sufficient for the field of education so I am not inclined to change my comment into a vote. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC).


 * Comment. The notability of this person was questioned by myself in the first place for the simple reason that nobody, other than her, had ever edited this page. On top of that, there is not a single citation.  Is this not important to this discussion?   Additionally, I wanted to test the waters for her. I am in the same field and know of a half dozen math education researchers that I would consider much more notable, none of which have wiki pages.  I am fine with either a keep or a delete, but wanted primarily wanted to hear from others about this. Thevandaley (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2012 (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.