Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miranda Cheng


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Miranda Cheng

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable by criteria in WP:PROF. Seems to be based on a single recent magazine article in the Quanta magazine. Merrybrit (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Merrybrit (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Merrybrit (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:Too soon. Assistant professors usually aren't notable, and this one has still a little way to go. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC).
 * The citation count in this field (theoretical particle physics/string theory) is usually higher than in other fields. This citation count is normal (not outstanding) for an assistant professor. Furthermore, I believe GS may be over-counting citations - for example, on her GS page (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Ac5xBvAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao) it lists several papers from 1970's by a different MC Cheng. The standard bibliographical resource in the high energy physics is INSPIRE, it lists only 857 citations (https://inspirehep.net/author/profile/M.C.N.Cheng.1 ).Merrybrit (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * She has her own GS page . Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC).
 * There are indeed wrong-authored papers on her Scholar profile, but only on the second page, well past the top-cited papers that we would look at to determine notability. You can tell that the ones on the first page are all hers because they use the author initials "MCN Cheng", an unusual combination not present in the other ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for identifying these wrongly attributed papers. These GS lists are constructed by its subjects, so I am puzzled about how these errors crept in. I have changed my vote. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC).
 * They're constructed more or less automatically by Google when a subject creates a profile, and then users who pay attention can manually correct any mistakes that crept in (such as wrong papers, missing papers, or papers that are incorrectly listed multiple times). And this needs to be done on an ongoing basis because Google will automatically update your profile and possibly introduce more mistakes. But many users don't seem to take much effort to curate their profiles once created. (Set to small because this is off-topic.) —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as article creator. I don't think this is a slam-dunk case by any means but I would not have created the article unless I were convinced that she passes WP:PROF. She has notable accomplishments (note for instance the existence of a separate article for umbral moonshine), well cited papers (three with over 100 cites each in Google scholar), and significant in-depth popular press (the Quanta article, not enough by itself for WP:GNG because there's only one of it and the Scientific American one isn't in-depth enough about the subject, but also a significant indicator of notability). Also, may I add that (although I am not using this as an argument for keeping the article, nor am I accusing the nominator of conscious sexism) this is part of a disturbing pattern, where articles on borderline-notable female scientists are nominated for deletion at what seems to be a much greater likelihood than male ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, the citation count is not outstanding for this field of theoretical physics (string theory). The umbral moonshine hypothesis was developed by a number of people so if we consider this to be a significant enough accomplishment per WP:PROF then all the contributors should have their own WP article (e.g. Tohru Eguchi who has >7000 cites). A couple of interviews in pop-sci magazines do not establish the notability of someone as an academic (unless it rises to the level of WP:PROF, which it doesn't in this case). I would not dignify by a response the implication that subconscious sexism is behind this nomination. Merrybrit (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So create the articles for the other contributors, if you think they should have articles; that argument falls under WP:WAX. And I'm not attempting to psychoanalyze or shame you — I do have good faith that you are trying to improve the project — but merely bringing attention to a broader pattern as have others before me (see response by SusunW to my comment at WT:N). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, but I still do not see notability. An interview with the Quanta does not make one notable for an encyclopedia. I don't know which article in the Scientific American you are referring to, the one I found (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mathematicians-chase-moonshine-s-shadow/) is actually just a reprint of another article in the Quanta from last year which mentions the subject in passing. The fact that the Quanta published two articles in 18 months on this topic doesn't rise to the level of significance required by WP:PROF. Pointing to the existence of the umbral moonshine article is not an argument, see WP:INN.Merrybrit (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * PS she's also mentioned in Le Monde but not in-depth enough to add much more to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Importance of work and novelty of career path combine to make this someone readers might be interested in looking up in an encyclopedia. The fact that the subject is a woman advancing in a male-dominated field is an additional factor pointing towards notability. bd2412  T 14:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Merrybrit (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Are there any reliable non-primary sources for the biographical claims in the article per WP:RS? I don't know how WP:BLP is applied - and so would defer to more experienced editors - but it seems to me that the evidence comes only from an interview with the subject published in the Quanta. I am not convinced that the Quanta fact-checks biographical claims made by its interviewees therefore calling into question the verifiability of such claims advanced in the article. The dearth of secondary sources attesting to the subject's biography is just another indicator of the subject not having passed WP:GNG.Merrybrit (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Quanta source is both more reliable and more secondary than what we have for most articles on academics, in that it is a published magazine article whose author and editor are independent of the subject. Usually we have to rely on the accuracy of a subject's own cv. That said, the parts about her masters and doctoral work are also easily verified by searching Utrecht's web site (e.g. for the master's,  for the doctorate).   —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying this and I agree that the details of an academic's career path can always be evidenced using secondary sources. But I meant some more outstanding claims attesting to the novelty of career path since it seems to be one of the justifications for inclusion in WP. For example, the claim that the subject dropped out of high school and played in a punk rock band. Again I am not an expert on WP policy but wouldn't more reliable (than the subject's interview) evidence be required for such claims? Testimony of band mates? Reviews from Taiwanese music sites referring to the composition of the band? Merrybrit (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I personally think that the "novelty of career path" adds a bit of color and interestingness to the article but is only relevant for notability to the extent that it gave Quanta an excuse to write an article (whose existence is more relevant). And I have no evidence that the band itself has any notability or even what its name is. So I guess this should be a question for, who advanced that argument. BD2412? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no insight into the identity of the band, but BLP objections are for controversial statements, not autobiographical declarations. bd2412  T 00:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The claim that the subject played in a rock band and then was admitted to university through a science program for gifted students can be considered controversial and "unduly self-serving" per WP:BLPSELFPUB unless backed up by reliable sources not connected with the subject. Merrybrit (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep has good citation record and passes WP:PROF which is proved by rs, more rs would of course be helpful Atlantic306 (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Eppstein and Megalibrarygirl and bd2412.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2016 (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.