Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susana Mourato


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. Nomination withdrawn, no !votes to delete. (non-admin closure) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Susana Mourato

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reviewed as a part of new article review / curation process.

IMO fails both GNG and academic notability guidelines. Article is just resume material and lengthy presentation her work, the latter unsourced except to her work itself. Found zero GNG suitable coverage in the references.North8000 (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - very comfortably passes WP:PROF based on her high h-index and citation count. Check her Google Scholar profile. TJMSmith (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The only reference to I see to H-index in the SNG is a caution to avoid relying on it, and the context was reviewing for passage under criteria #1. I'm not arguing for deletion.   Possibly you know of some common / accepted practice that is different than the letter of the SNG.   (?)   North8000 (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The common practice is to have some idea of citation practices by field and adjust for that, but to a rough approximation academics with maybe three publications that each have 100 or more citations are notable enough; more would be needed in high-citation fields, less might be enough in low-citation fields. A more accurate guide (but one we rarely follow) would be to look at the most significant publications in the subject's specific research area and try to weigh how highly cited the subject's papers are among them and how prominent the area is. Or, to a more rough approximation the typical level one would expect from a full professor at a good university is probably enough. The short answer is to not rely on the h-index without having some idea what it means, but that's very far from not using it at all. In Mourato's case, we have three publications with over 1000 citations each (more than 10x what a borderline-passing case might look like), or 25 with more than 100 (again, maybe 10x). We have evidence in my answer below for how that ranks in economics as a whole. Or you could search Google Scholar for "environmental valuation", notice that her paper doesn't show up because of a typo in the title, compare it anyway and see that it's #1. Do the same with "economic valuation" and get the same result. Conclude that she seems to be one of the top experts in the world on a significant topic in economics. It's a problem that these guidelines are tough for new-page patrollers to follow, but that doesn't mean that we should throw them out and replace them with nothing. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! North8000 (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Easy pass of WP:PROF. Listed among top 5% of economists on RePeC. UK full professorship, which (although not quite enough by itself for WP:PROF usually counts for more than the corresponding rank in the US. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Several highly cited papers looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1.  I agree that the discussion of her work relies too much on primary sources, but it doesn't strike me as obnoxiously promotional. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep / withdrawn Per other "keep" arguments above. North8000 (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2020 (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.