Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laure Zanna


 * 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. This was a close debate. In the end, the consensus appears to be that, while Zanna is very likely to be a suitable subject for an article in the future - possibly the very near future - at this point in time she does not meet the relevant notability criteria. Yunshui 雲 水 07:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Laure Zanna

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No yet notable. The citations are too low for notability by WP:PROF. : 59, 58, 53. The prize is an early career award, meaning someone who is hoped will be notable someday, a sort of junior varsity. There are no independent sources toshow notability in any other respect either.  DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete does not yet meet the notability criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, might fall just short of the WP:NPROF criteria (for now), but there are clearly enough sources for a decent length article that meets the core content policies, so I'm not seeing a strong reason to delete. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's quite creative, I might say. &#x222F; WBG converse 19:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really. The notability guideline exists to help us write good encyclopaedia articles, not delete them because they don't meet arbitrary criteria. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &#x222F; WBG converse 19:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Wikipedia Academic Notability criteria [1]. Her work has received considerable coverage outside of the bubble of academia. Jesswade88 (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. No pass of WP:Prof on basis of GS citations in this very highly cited field. WP:Too soon now, but matters may have changed in five years time. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC).
 * What would count as enough citations given her 2014 paper in Ocean Modelling is 12 times more cited than the average for the field? Richard Nevell (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * looking back at academic AfDs over the past ten years, the impression that emerges is that for an average-cited field the cut-off is around 1000 citations or an h-index of around 15. For a highly-cited field, such as climate change, these numbers would be much higher; for a low-cited field such as theology or philosophy much lower. The procedure is to compare like with like. The subject's cites on GS  are 664 cites and an h-index of 16, so her statistics are only marginal, even for an average-cited field and there is not a pass of WP:NACADEMIC. If you want to show notability  here, find other mainstream climate scientists with BIOs on Wikipedia having an equal or lower citation record. The average cites per paper in most fields are very low and any substantially cited paper will have cites much above average. Anyway, the specific paper you refer to has two authors, so she gets only half the credit for it. Having said all this, her citations on GS are growing strongly and, if she continues as she is, she will pass WP:Prof in a few years.
 * At present WP:TOO SOON. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC).
 * I see no reason to divide "credit" by the number of authors. Even going down that path presumes both knowledge of relative contributions and quantifiability thereof, which strike me as extremely dubious. (And if one did want to attempt that kind of hair-splitting, one should incorporate the fact that Zanna is the one distinguished as corresponding author. Does that give her 60% instead of 50%? 75%?) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the average for a researcher in the field is, but what is the judgement of marginality being based on? Zanna has written or co-written plenty of papers which are above the average for citations in their field. Aside from the above paper, there's another where the field citation ratio is 13 and classed as 'extremely highly cited'. Even then, citations don't tell the full story of impact, and this paper has been picked up by 40 news outlets. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Adequate evidence that the subject passes WP:NACADEMIC #1 and #3. Andrew D. (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How is WP:NACADEMIC #3 passed? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC).
 * She is a fellow of an Oxford college and Oxford is ranked by some as the foremost university in the world. Andrew D. (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That does not remotely pass WP:Prof which refers to FRS, NAS and other National academies. A Fellowship of an Oxbridge college has never been accepted as passing WP:Prof. If you think so please quote precedents. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC).
 * The Royal Society was a spinoff from Wadham College which is clearly an elite academic body. She sits at its top table and this seems adequate recognition of her status.  As we also have #1, we have enough for a pass as guidelines are not hard policies or rigid rules but are merely indicative.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Royal Society was formed by a group of people associated with Wadham  in 1662. Wadham remains important; the Royal Society had become world-famous. A fellowship at Wadham is an appropriate rank for an academic who is not yet notable. A Fellow of the Royal Society is an honour for someone famous.  DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. In the British system, the term "fellow" can have any of a widely-varying collection of meanings. Some checking indicates a title of "David Richards Fellow and Tutor in Physics", which seems to be a tutorial fellow...namely, a professor who is responsible for teaching undergrads in their own areas of specialty. This is decidedly not a designation that satisfies PROF c1 or c3. Agricola44 (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Notice the word "and". Teaching duties are separate from the status and title of Fellow.  Wadham has "Fellows and academic staff" and people may be the latter without being a fellow.  There are numerous tutors and lecturers there who are not fellows while being a fellow makes you part of the governing body of the College.  The college is an illustrious institution and so we have the sort of status expected for #3.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. H-index is around 15 - which yes - is marginal for the field - but is also fairly high for a young scholar. Furthermore - it is a very solid 15 - evenly spread out, article number 20 has 10 citations and she's getting cited at a fast rising pace (2016 - 50, 2017 - ~100, 2018 - 160. 2019 - 160 to date) - which is a likely indication that this h-index will probably rise (e.g. recent 2017 papers are at 13, 13, 11, and 10 citations - so likely they'll push past 15 soon given they're getting cited at ~5/year so far) - it doesn't take a big crystal ball here to see a h-index of around 20 soon. When we add to this that a google-news search shows she's getting quoted quite a bit in mainstream press (e.g. New York Times, Guardian, Popular Mechanics, etc.) - you also see a reach here beyond academia. Does she clearly pass WP:NPROF#1? No, but she's close. Does she pass WP:NPROF#7? Possibly. Does she pass GNG? Probably not (but hard to tell given all the times she's quoted - need to sift through and see if she's profiled as well). However the ensemble here as a whole - very close to our notability threshold (possibly over), and on a clearly rising trajectory - is per WP:NOTPAPER worth preserving. Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. This seems to be a good-faith BLP that is TOOSOON. XXan recounted our long-standing framework used to eval PROFs and, in a very hot, high-activity field like climate change, her record in this context is decidedly average. This seems to be grudgingly admitted by some of the above "keeps" that are rhetorically straining to retain this one. To get an idea of clear notability in this area, I would point to someone like Natalie Mahowald (who does not even have a WP BLP – I have added this to my TODO list). Note that it would be unusual for someone working in this field to not have a few interviews here and there. Trajectory seems good, but, as XXan observed, it's toosoon. Agricola44 (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep basically per Icewhiz and Joe Roe. (At worst, unobjectionable content and a rising trajectory would be a case for draftifying until such time as wiki-notability is obvious.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Addendum I upgraded one of the references from a content mirror to the original source in the Guardian. There seems to be an at-least adequate amount of WP:RS coverage of her work, which is what wiki-notability for scientists is ultimately based upon. (The whole point of WP:PROF is that we can improve the encyclopedia by writing about people whose work is independently established to be important, even if those people don't get biographical details splashed everywhere like, say, movie stars do.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify the "rising trajectory" remark: the only reason that entered my considerations was because the article falls into a borderline or gray area where PROF and GNG are concerned. Good citation profile, but not stellar; substantial media coverage (not just brief quotes in local news) of her work, but not of her personally. I'm stuck having to make a judgment call, without the normal crutches that make such matters easy (and give the eventual decision a veneer of quantitativeness). So the question for me becomes, would this languish as a perma-stub? The text of it isn't indulging in freewheeling speculation. After cutting a sentence about a best-paper award, the bits and pieces of it all appear above the threshold of things worth mentioning. Keeping it seems the better course of action than otherwise. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. She is just an ordinary and relatively young scientist who is not notable by our standards. H-index is only around 15 (in natural sciences). No significant awards, no 3rd party publications about the person. One needs to refer either to her own publications or to official website of the University to find any information about the person. My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as her achievements and citations show a rising trajectory, as per Icewhiz, JessWade88. Her career indicates a rising star, in a highly esteemed university.DrPlantGenomics (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, you and the others are basically arguing CRYSTAL. Agricola44 (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: a "rising trajectory" is the classic expression of not yet notable. Academics --and everyone and everything else as well-- become notable when they have risen.  DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, Xxanthippe, and My very best wishes. Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. We can move it to draft if others think it is WP:TOOSOON. Being "young" or on "a rising trajectory" are not valid keep arguments. Edwardx (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice against later re-creation if her notability improves, per WP:TOOSOON. Draftification would be acceptable but I'd recommend against it because the draft would likely need both several years waiting (for her to become notable) and significant rewriting (to write about the stuff she would have become notable for) before it could become acceptable. Puffing the article with minor things like early-career and best-paper awards and detailed descriptions of individual research papers sourced to those individual research papers are signs that the more significant awards, works by other people that cover her research in-depth, or other ways she could become notable haven't happened yet. As the discussion above suggests, the citation record is promising but not yet at the level needed for WP:PROF in a high-citation field, her "fellow" title is routine for all Oxbridge faculty rather than being the kind of fellow that passes #C3, and there is no indication that she passes any of the other criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Borderline keep. I take all the points mentioned by both sides. Deb (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per David Eppstein. Doesn't meet PROF#1 yet and the case for a GNG keep isn't there either. To add a less important heuristic consideration, the only incoming links are from a list at Tel_Aviv_University and from Zanna (surname). Haukur (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2019 (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.