Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Kiesler


 * 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.

Sara Kiesler
The result was speedy keep. Non-admin closure. walk victor falktalk 23:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Primarily unsourced BLP. Won award, which as far as I can tell, isn't that significant. Some scientific work, but I see no reason why she passes WP:SCHOLAR, and there just isn't enough there for GNG. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 21:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - SIGCHI's CHI Academy award is evidence that she her research has had a significant impact in her field as the award is for "individuals who have made substantial contributions to the field of human-computer interaction. These are the principal leaders of the field, whose efforts have shaped the disciplines and/or industry, and led the research and/or innovation in human-computer interaction." as stated at their web site. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Election to CHI Academy, over 100 publications with several articles having over 1000 citations should suggest she's a hugely-influential scholar in human computer interaction. Classic case of WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep several papers with over 1000 cites passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC).
 * I note that the nominator of this AfD is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC).


 * Speedy keep. The nominator appears to have intended to refer to WP:PROF, not WP:SCHOLAR (which is something else), but seems not to have read it. She passes WP:PROF #1 (academic impact as measured by citations) by a far more clear-cut margin than most AfDs, and probably passes #2 (significant awards), but I imagine one could still argue that those criteria are somewhat subjective. And there's a possible pass of #8, as editor of Human-Robot Interaction, but maybe that's too new a journal to count. Even if one doesn't count all that, she clearly and obviously passes WP:PROF #3 (has a named chair at a major research institution). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Among the 100 most influential scholars in computer science, as measured by the h-index of citation impact. http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~palsberg/h-number.html. An h-index of 53 means she has at least 53 paper with at least 53 citations. Her book with Sproull called Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organizationwas highly influential, defining the direction of research on computer-mediated communication for years to come. Google Scholar shows it having over 2,000 citations. She clearly passes WP:PROF #1 (academic impact as measured by citations) I should mention my conflict of interest on this vote, since I've published with her and teach in her department. Robertekraut (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2010 (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.