Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Dubrovinskaia


 * 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   withdrawal of nomination. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Natalia Dubrovinskaia

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Substub on a post doc with little to no possibility of expansion. The rationale for deletion was eloquently laid out by User:87.164.198.76: "It is not clear why and by whom this page was created, given that there is no support that this person meets notability criteria. Notability is more and more often quantified by the h-index. H-index for this person is 11 according to the Web of science, which is low by most standards. According to the web-page of the University of Bayreuth this person is not a group leader. There is no support that this person has priority in synthesis of aggregated diamond nanorods. Besides, even if one proves the priority, there is no support that such synthesis is remarkable." ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Week Keep 65 publications, in the highest quality journals, most lately first author of PNAS 105, Issue 33, 19 August 2008, Pages 11619-11622  "An insight into what superconducts in polycrystalline boron-doped diamonds based on investigations of microstructure"  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0801520105. Her most cited paper, Nature 410 (6829), pp. 653-654 is cited 97 times, then 41, 38, 37 etc. for the leading others. Home page at Heidelberg: http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/institute/fak12/min/de/personen/personen_page/dubrovinskaia.html.  It is foolish indeed to use the h index as a numerical value across fields for quantifying notability in Wikipedia. It is totally insensitive to the publication of a few high quality papers, & rewards the mass production of medium quality papers. : Publish 11 papers with 11 citations each, the h index is 11. Publish one with 97, and 10 with 11, the h-index is still 11. In fact, publish 10 with 970 and one with 11, it's still 11.  Weak, because the principal author in this work might be Leonid Dubrovinsky, who has 3 times as many publications, but none of high citation count. http://www.bgi.uni-bayreuth.de/organization/bgistaff/staffinfo.php?id=87  I;'d need some more information to avoid sexism about who is the Principal investigator--or whether they might even be equal. . As for whether the work itself is important, I'll trust the reviewers at Nature and PNAS for that . DGG (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, perhaps this person is notable, but the current version of this article fails to establish notability. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. That would be because somebody removed valid sources from the article a few minutes after it was nominated for deletion. I have replaced them. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes the general notability guideline and WP:PROF criterion 7 with plenty of coverage in non-academic sources such as the ones that an IP editor has persistently removed from the article and many more found by a Google News search. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. It's not even clear to me how this was nominated – most of the assertions in the prod are non-sense and easily refuted. Here's a partial list: (1) she's not a post-doc, but rather a fully-habilitated professor (according to her website) – note that the Habilitation is the highest academic qualification in a number of EU countries (above the PhD), (2) Web of Science shows >50 publications in mainstream journals, many of which have a limited author list, implying she made substantive contributions and was not listed gratuitously, was not just a technician, etc., (3) there are well-known problems with using metrics like the h-index exclusively and this instance is certainly one of them, as DGG has capably pointed-out above, (4) even if you did like to rely just on h, the asserted value seems to be wrong on the low side – Web of Science shows a value of 15 searching on "Author=(Dubrovinskaia N*)", which is substantially higher than 11, given the non-linear nature of the metric. (I do not know what accounts for the discrepancy with the value in the prod, given that they evidently also used Web of Science.) Be that as it may, I think what is clear is that the subject has long and notable research record, making her a leading authority in her field (materials research). The article could easily be expanded to reflect this. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2009 (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.