Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Chang


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Michelle Chang

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable person. Does not meet the criteria for notable academic. Mootros (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - No significant assertion of notability. Carrite (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — Logan Talk Contributions 00:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Would the nominator care to give us his views on the Google Scholar results for M C Y Chang, under which name the subject publishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC).


 * Comment - That information does improve the landscape in Googleland. What's the notability hook though? Is there an aspect of her work that is cutting edge? Carrite (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - PROF This may answer your question. Mootros (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It's still pretty early in her career, but she's already getting high citation counts for her work, making a plausible case for WP:PROF. The highest-cited is a paper in Nature with nearly 500 citations, but I'm less convinced by that one than by some of the others, because it has many authors with her name not in a prominent place. The variation in authors among her different works suggests to me that she has a strong independent research program going and is not just riding someone else's coattails. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. GS h index of 23, but in a very highly cited field. What does WoS say? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep I agree that the case can be made here that she meets WP:PROF, or is very close to doing so. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep GS has a very high rate of double counts. WoS lists 21 papers, 1163 total citations, h of 13. A few papers with very high citation counts (329, 273, 105), but she's only a junior author on those (not first, certainly not last). I don't really think she's there yet, but it looks like it won't be long. --Crusio (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2011 (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.