Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele K. Evans


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Michele K. Evans

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

After closing the deletion discussion about another non-notable Michelle Evans, I came across this article. It does not establish the notability of the subject (WP:BIO). Her accomplishments as a scientist appear to be substantial but not extraordinary, and she does not hold a high academic rank (WP:PROF). Also, the article does not cite "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (WP:BASIC), and I was not readily able to find such sources. The cited sources are either directory or social media entries, passing mentions, or citations to her research, but nothing covering her as a person in any depth.  Sandstein  12:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and United States of America.   Sandstein   12:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Georgia (U.S. state), New Jersey,  and New York.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  21:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. She has 15,667 citations and an h-index of 64 on Scopus. Although many of her highest-cited works are large collaborations, there are a fair number where she appears to be senior author (including articles with 306, 258, 214, 190, 170, 156, 143, 130, and 122 citations), and she has 2nd-authorship on an NEJM paper with 856 citations.
 * JoelleJay (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That does not convince me. WP:PROF says: "Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others." Absent acual coverage of her as a person, we simply do not have enough reliable information to base a neutral article on.  Sandstein   07:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ This is the standard method used to assess NPROF C1: The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. ... The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Science and Scopus. The part you quote is only cautioning against h-index and other derived metrics, but I'm referring to raw measures like her total citations and her top-cited works as a senior author. Descriptions of her senior-author work in independent academic papers would be acceptable sources to fill out the research section of her biography. JoelleJay (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All right. I defer to the opinion of those who know about such things; I myself have no idea what citation indexes (indices?) even are. But in principle I remain of the view that all Wikipedia articles should be based on prose coverage in reliable sources, rather than numbers in some database.  Sandstein   11:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree in general. Though I have found in cases where there are a lot of citations and the subject is the senior author of many papers, there may be enough secondary descriptions of their work within independent academic sources that it's possible to write an article based around those. So the personal life details can be sourced to their non-independent university profiles, but the bulk of the article will be in the research section summarizing what other scholars have said about their research. JoelleJay (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: per WP:PROF based on the citation counts of her research as mentioned above. That was the basis I was using when I started this bio a few years ago. TJMSmith (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Unfortunately there are some misquotes above about how h-factors should be used. This has recently been discussed extensively in WT:NPROF. The numbers are discipline and co-author dependent, and should not (consensus) be taken in isolation. What is needed is independent validation from society awards. Her problem is that I do not see any of these, so she fails WP:NPROF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. Passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC).
 * Keep. Clearly passes both C1 of WP:Prof . I would also make a case for C4 because her work has had a sizable impact on federally funded research, according to the NIH (I added a citation for this to the article). Qflib (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2024 (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.