Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miquel Antoine


 * 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. Keep arguments have been refuted and clearly consensus is that thus is below the gng and normal standards for inclusion. Being part of an underrepresented group isn’t an argument to lower our standards. Spartaz Humbug! 20:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Miquel Antoine

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails GNG and NPROF. According to Scopus, she has ~18 papers and an h-index of 7. She also received a non-notable award from a non-notable magazine. Overall Scopus citation metrics for Dr. Antoine, and for the people with more than 5 papers among her 43 49 coauthors and the most recent 50 coauthors of her most frequent collaborator: Total citations: average: 2762, median: 1204, Dr. Antoine: 276. Total papers: avg: 71, med: 44, A: 18. h-index: avg: 20, med: 17, A: 7. Highest citation: avg: 419, med: 172, A: 114.
 * EDIT: Scopus didn't combine her Hampton and JHU publications. The new metrics are as follows (with 6 new coauthors added): Total citations: average: 2738, median: 1298, Dr. Antoine: 484. Total papers: avg: 72, med: 46, A: 25. h-index: avg: 20, med: 17, A: 10. Highest citation: avg: 409, med: 184, A: 165. Still well below the standards in her field, keeping in mind that the standard is also far from sufficient for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Uncertain. The reason I'm here in the discussion is that I deprodded it, and I think thta was the right choice, because notability of a record like her's needs to be determined in a group discussion.  The only numbers that really count are the ones that determine whetherthe person is influential, and that's measured by the most cited papers. There's an approximate standard conversion factor between Scopus and google Scholar--GS counts are normally about twice as high in most subjects. GS is convenient because we all have access to it.  (indeed, I no longer have access to Scopus myself after my retirement from Princeton) And, for her most cited paper, Analytical Chemistry 63.6 (1991), the GS count is indeed 252, and I would expect the Scopus count to be half that.  In particular,  h index shows nothing.   Someone with citations of 300, 200, 100, 90, 80, 50, 7,  2.  would have h=7. Someone with citations of 10, 9, 9, 8, 8, 7, 2 would also have h=7. The first person would be notable, but not the second. I'm normally rather skeptical of those whose role is technical only and whose proprsed notability might possibly have some connection with being one of an underrepresented group.  DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * DGG (pinging hroest as well) -- Apparently Scopus left out the 7 papers she had at Hampton, so I added them and recalculated her metrics (still far from notable). I agree h-index isn't particularly meaningful on its own, but in the context of the other metrics it is useful. I would also argue how we weight a particular highly-cited paper strongly depends on author position (not to mention subfield). According to Scopus, Dr. Antoine's top 10 papers have 165, 114, 38, 32, 24, 22, 17, 17, 12, 10, 7, 5, and 3 citations, and her highest-cited first-author paper has 17 citations. Of the 80 coauthors*, 54 have more citations, 53 have more papers, 57 have a higher h-index, and 43 have a higher highest-cited paper. Only one of those 43 has a lower h-index and 0 have fewer total cites. Looking at the average of their top 5 papers, the median is 227 while Dr. Antoine's is 52; 5/43 have a lower-cited 2nd-highest paper, and 0/43 have a lower 3rd-, 4th-, or 5th-highest cited paper). I mention all of this to show what the implications would be if Dr. Antoine met our NPROF criteria: over half of her coauthors* would have articles. For what it's worth (and I know this is rather OTHERSTUFF(DOESN'T)EXIST), I searched Wikipedia for all 23 (out of 80) of her coauthors* with an h-index above 25, and there was only one page, for Catherine Fenselau. Her metrics are 15878, 415, 65, and 750 (with top 10 papers at 750, 673, 366, 275, 264, 249, 218, 215, 190, 186).
 * * direct coauthors + most recent 50 coauthors of her most frequent collaborator; publication threshold >5, which is a VERY LOW cutoff considering we want to determine whether she beats the average professor test. JoelleJay (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * weak delete. per NPROF also the most cited paper is a review she wrote in her first year of her PhD and clearly a total number of citations of 276 is very low in her field (of which 114 are from the review paper). --hroest 15:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It looks like she satisfies Criteria 1 at WP:NACADEMIC based on citation counts at Google Scholar, but might be borderline. Leaning towards keep to bridge the gender bias gap. Redoryxx (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * genuinely curious, what makes you think that her citation count makes her satisfy NPROF#1 ? 484 citations in this field is clearly not a lot. --hroest 19:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen in other discussions re NPROF, my general understanding was that having a few publications with >100 citations satisfies #1. This isn't defined in NPROF, so what I've seen in other discussions may have been dependent on the field. Redoryxx (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * there is a reason why there is no numeric cutoff in NPROF since this will depend largely on the field, in low citation fields this would be more than enough but in high citation fields such as chemistry/biology etc this would make way too many people notable. Secondly, writing a review is basically a summary of the literature and not an original research contribution, so it does not count as much as a research paper with a novel finding in it. So we have to look at the whole career of a person, in this case it seems she had a reasonably "average" career (nothing bad about that) but nothing that would make her stand out from the other 55,195 people who get awarded a PhD every year in the US. Also, as JoelleJay shows above, her citations are actually way less than even an "average" academic in her field, and in general we do not write articles about the "average professor" (there are simply too many of them). --hroest 21:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep agree with Redoryxx that numeric citations of her work so far and her notability as a woman of color in STEM are not two separate achievements and so it may be WP:TOOSOON but for me it is across the border to keep.Kaybeesquared (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * can you please explain how being a women in STEM makes a person notable? I dont see that anywhere in WP:N or WP:NPROF. --hroest 20:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 02:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment a citation from the guidance sections refers to gender bias in wikipedia content but I can accept that it may not be evidenced in this case, unless those familiar with academic criteria being applied are also convinced there is a bias at play.

Kaybeesquared (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Kaybeesquared, the solution to [X] bias on Wikipedia is to create more articles on notable [X], not to hold on to the articles on non-notable [X]. In the course of my research during AfDs I've come across dozens of women who don't have articles but more than meet NPROF criteria. I will start adding them to my userspace in case people want to make articles on them. JoelleJay (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * JoelleJay thanks agree but I wonder if you could add the suggestions to a community group instead e.g. WikiProject:Women in Red

Kaybeesquared (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, added to the talk page of WikiProject Women Scientists! JoelleJay (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: The citation stats from Scopus and Web of Knowledge (cf. 's comment below the nomination) are insufficient for WP:NACADEMIC#1 within her high-citation field (mass spectrometry, analytical chemistry, applied physics). In other words, it does not stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than the average impact of a researcher in [the] given field. The awards don't fit NACADEMIC#2 either, and there isn't any evidence of the other NACADEMIC criteria nor WP:GNG. Echoing other here: the WP gender bias is very real and is a reason to create articles on notable women, but is not an argument for individual notability. — MarkH21talk 02:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. I see nothing here that establishes notability. While it is true as remarked above that we usually take a few publications with more than 100 citations as evidence for notability, I would like to note that in the present case the subject is senior (last) author on only one of those papers. --Randykitty (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see arguments about her meeting the criteria or not based on publications, and it appears she is slightly below that mark. I note she has won an award but that may not be notable as it does not have an article of its own. I would be on the fence here except I hold a presumably unpopular opinion that if it's really close and the BLP is of an underrepresented community (both female and of colour in a STEM environment), I would lean towards keeping it. I love JoelleJay's initiative and will bookmark it and begin working on some of those. Ifnord (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * see the analysis of JoelleJay, this isnt just "borderline", this is way below average with the caveat that "average" is below the bar that we require for notability. --hroest 02:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. The citation count is borderline, but with the award win in conjunction with that, I think she just squeaks by. Additionally, gender bias should be considered in this decision by the closer. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ifnord, thank you for taking an interest in my list! Hopefully someday all those red links will turn blue :) 4meter4, regarding Dr. Antoine, I would generally also err on the side of keeping close calls when underrepresented groups are involved, but unfortunately in this case it's really not even close to borderline. The average number of citations of researchers in her field (including students and techs) is almost 6 times higher than hers, and the h-index is double. The average (and median) of all 80 of her coauthors' and her top five papers are: 1st: 412 (213), A: 165. 2nd: 223 (118), A: 114. 3rd: 150 (105), A: 38. 4th: 130 (91), A: 32. 5th: 112 (74), A: 24. While the medians aren't as exaggerated as the averages, they still demonstrate quite a ways to go before she meets even the standard citation metrics of her field -- which are themselves much lower than the standard metrics of senior researchers in the field (this is actually the more appropriate demographic for comparisons according to NPROF). I didn't think I would need to calculate those metrics, but will do so if it would be more convincing. Regards, JoelleJay (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, per reasons stated above by other pro-keep comments (related to positive approach on gender and minority issues), and also because in 2006 she was recipient of the Lloyd N. Ferguson Young Scientist Award for Excellence in Research, granted by the National Organization for the Professional Advancement of Black Chemists and Chemical Engineers (that reward is not mentioned in the article). Sorabino (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorabino, generally non-notable "early career" awards are not considered sufficient for satisfying C2. I don't know which guideline a "positive approach on gender and minority issues" falls under, but surely it still has some academic notability standards? Dr. Antoine is a highly skilled, respected researcher in a competitive field -- but that does not mean she is notable. She works as a senior technician (not a professor) and her h-index is 10. If we lowered our criteria enough for her to meet NPROF notability, we would need to add articles on at least half of her 80 coauthors; would this really achieve gender/minority equity on WP? Personally, I would find it extremely insulting, racist, and sexist if we did this only for STEM minority women -- we already face enough doubt in our abilities from society's perception of affirmative action. JoelleJay (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2021 (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.