Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Hyams


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Nina Hyams

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication she meets WP:PROF. Jayjg (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm seeing large amounts of cites of her papers and books at Gscholar, as well as exposition on some things she's researched via Gbooks , , . An additional source describes her work (or part of it) as influential.  As a result of the Gscholar results, I argues she meets WP:PROF #1, as a result of the books I listed above, I argue she meets WP:GNG.  --joe deckertalk to me 04:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ...none of which appears in the Wikipedia article, which consists of two unsourced sentences. Also, most of those google scholar hits appear to be material she has published, not citations by others. When doing searches, you should probably put "Nina Hyams" in quotation marks; she's not the only Hyams around. For example, the film director Peter Hyams gets 330 gscholar hits, and Hollywood columnist and biographer Joe Hyams, gets 250 gscholar hits. Jayjg (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply.
 * You're absolutely right that I should have included quotes, this would have been the correct link. However, the first 20 results of this new search results are roughly identical to the search I performed, are all related to the branch of linguistics this professor's article indicates she's involved in, and are likely the same individual.
 * When I said "a lot of cites", I did not mean that Gscholar returned a lot of results. A more reliable metric, although surely imperfect, is how often the books and papers authored by the article subject are cited by authoritative sources. For example, the first two results are books authored by the article subject (I beleive) cited themselves by 1200+ and 800+ scholarly publications themselves. The formal papers start out with cite counts of 200 or so. While I have not computed the typical indicia used to turn this into a guess as notability (e.g., h-index, g-index), it was and still remains my sense that the citation counts on those highly cited books and papers reach a level which is well above the usual passing bar. Sorry for any confusion on this point. --joe deckertalk to me 06:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ...none of which appears in the Wikipedia article, which still consists of two unsourced sentences. Jayjg (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While I lack access to the vast majority of the works that would support a full article on this subject, I hope the nine or so book references that I have added to the article will serve as a sufficient starting point. --joe deckertalk to me 02:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Clear keep from WP:Prof. joe decker's interpretation of policy is correct. Around 3000 GS cites and an h index of 25 in linguistics is far above average. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP via WP:Prof.. In my view an important scholar in her field with evidence easily found and sufficient provided by the sources cited in the article. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC))
 * Keep. Only 12 WoS papers, but their collective citations are > 150, which I think is enormous for that particular field. Agricola44 (talk) 16:06, 29 June 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.