Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigríður Þorgeirsdóttir


 * 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Sigríður Þorgeirsdóttir

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can find no clear indication that this professor of philosophy meets WP:PROF. Haukur (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Her h-index is six, which If I understand it correctly means six papers that were cited by at least six others. That's not terrible, but how does it rank in terms of those who usually meet WP:NPROF?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Low, but you're asking the wrong question. The h-index is for scholars in journal-based fields. For scholars in book-based fields, we should look for published book reviews instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the excellent reply!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:Too soon. The citations are indeed low, but may be validly compared with those of other philosophers. It should be noted that academic books are reviewed as a matter of course, so the existence of reviews does not necessarily signify notability. The situation may be clearer for this currently early-career academic in another ten years. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC).
 * Early-career? She's had her doctorate for over 25 years. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Lots of academic books go unreviewed, and, even if it was the case that every academic book had multiple reviews, that would just show how notable lots of academics and their books are. Your argument is not based in WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:ACADEMIC (there is a note there about journals that publish reviews of basically every refereed book, but that's a different matter). The subject of this article finished her doctorate in 1993 and is currently a full professor. I think you and I have very different ideas about what "early career" means. Josh Milburn (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I should probably not go into detail about my opinions on the lack of correlation between visible publication impact and internally-perceived prominence among philosophers. But in any case, for Wikipedia all we have to go by is what is visible. In this case, the article lists three edited volumes (not worth much), and separately as "books" two more collections, two calendars, and one thing that actually looks to me like a scholarly book, her Vis creativa. Searching Google books didn't find much else. I found no published reviews of her one book. I don't see any evidence on which we can base a keep, neither in her citation record (WP:PROF) nor her book publishing (WP:AUTHOR) nor anywhere else. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's also the fact that some scholarly books make a significant public impact, sometimes to the extent that they become public figures (or notorious and widely-flamed on social media). Þorgeirsdóttir certainly doesn't seem to be the author of any of those, either. Since David Eppstein is certainly correct that she's been around for 25 years, we can probably safely say that she hasn't reached the big time yet, and really hasn't garnered much critical notice. Of course, if she does become notable sometime in her sixties, then we'll be able to create an article for her. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2019 (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.