Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Auger


 * 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Julie Auger

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Cannot find independent sources to find notability. Natureium (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:PROF with 7 journal articles being cited over 100 times, one over 1,000. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Although she is an author of some highly cited lab papers, she appears to not have an advanced degree, and her UC Davis bio speaking of her expertise in developing cytometry facilities suggests that her role in those papers may have been as a lab technician rather than as one of the leaders of the work. The only publication listed in her Google Scholar profile that has her as first author ("Help Us Help You! The Cytometry Interest Research Group Bridging the Gap Between Sample Purification and Downstream Applications") has zero citations. So I'm skeptical that we can use WP:PROF in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not too sure how the professor criterion works, but she does have a PhD, MA, and BA- the link also lists studies that she was a part of. SL93 (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a study of hers on Google Books - The Development of a Literary Standard. This source on Google Books mentions "Julie Auger and her collaborators". SL93 (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a completely unrelated person with the same name. We're looking at the UC Davis cytometry/administration one, Julie A. Auger, not the literary scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete not a lead author on enough papers to show field impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per David Epstein's analysis. I couldn't find anything else that suggests passage of PROF either. Notability has been challenged here, and unless there is an indication of meeting PROF then this should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Her bio says that her expertise is in administration of research so I'm inclined to agree with the above comments that WP:NPROF is not met. The only reference is her bio page at UC Davis so WP:GNG is also not met. Papaursa (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. As I already commented above, I don't think her high-citation-count publications can be counted towards WP:PROF, and her current administrative role is certainly not enough for notability either. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2018 (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.