Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naomi Ginsberg


 * 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   no consensus. There does not seem to be agreement on whether the sources for this topic overcome the modest h-index. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Naomi Ginsberg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing nomination on behalf of User:IlyaV, whose rationale (found here) is that the subject is a non-notable professor, and that the article reads like an advert. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete. Fails WP:PROF, as an Associate Professor with a h-index of only 9. -- 120.17.113.201 (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, search for this individual finds more often content about the mother of Allen Ginsberg, and not the subject of this AfD. Once we strip all the content about the mother of Allen Ginsberg, one finds very little in the way of non-primary or secondary reliable sources that give mention of this subject. Furthermore, those who do, do so in passing, and in no way do those sources appear to meet significant coverage or in-depth coverage, and thus the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. See WP:NOTRESUME. Perhaps it is too soon for the subject to have an article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The subject's h-index, according to GScholar, is indeed only 9, but GScholar also shows her as first-named author of two papers with citation counts of over 100 and (so far as I can judge) a g-index of at least 25 (a person's g-index is usually more than their h-index, but rarely by this kind of ratio). The main problem here seems to be that she has published a few papers with high citations but not much else. In some fields, these achievements would be quite enough to clearly meet WP:PROF#1 despite the low h-index - here, it might still be TOOSOON but I would like to see further opinions. PWilkinson (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The endowed chair and other awards (ignoring the unnecessary listing of BA and PhD) are sufficient for wp:academic LaMona (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete An endowed associate professorship is not an endowed chair within the meaning of WP:PROF. It's a funded junior position,which some of the richest universities arable to provide, but it indicates a career still in development, but with promise.  DGG ( talk ) 07:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 11:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. As of three weeks ago, she is the recipient of a Sloan Fellowship, which is highly selective (criteria 1 discusses "highly selective fellowships (other than postdoctoral fellowships)"), as well as holding an (admittedly junior) endowed chair; she has performed work which appeared on the cover of Nature magazine, and has multiple papers with 50+ citations, including at least one with 100+ citations. If the main concern is the advertising nature of the article, then let's just rewrite it. I'll volunteer to do it if that's the only reason people are voting to delete.Brirush (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have gone ahead and made some changes to address the self-praise issues and to improve formatting.Brirush (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 *  weak delete Keep Although it may well be just a tad WP:TOOSOON, this is a well-sourced article on what appears to be a rising research scientist. We have so many paltry articles about unquestionably notable academics (some of which I started), that it seems a shame to delete a pretty good article about an academic who appears to be on the cusp of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 15:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Barely-above-threshold citation counts and Sloan fellow push this to a keep for me, despite being earlier in her career than I would prefer for the creation of a new article. There's every reason to expect her record to continue improving, so in a few years I would expect her to more clearly pass WP:PROF; if not, we can revisit the decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2015 (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.