Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessy María López Goerne


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Tessy María López Goerne

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not seeing a pass on WP:PROF her scholar profile only shows 85 total citations, though maybe that record is incomplete. (See below) Has been some coverage of her legal issues surrounding nanogel in the Mexican press (e.g. ) but I'm not seeing enough in-depth coverage for a WP:GNG pass. This article is being bombarded by IP users currently removing unflattering passages, here's an archived version from August from before they started to whitewash it. Many of the references currently in the article are not reliable, like links to her book or her profile on her university website. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women,  and Mexico. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I am sufficiently convinced by other voters that her second google scholar profile indicates that she in fact passes PROF. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently she has two separate google scholar profiles for whatever reason? Anyway, her other google scholar profile has over 10,000 citations, and a h-index of 56. Make of that what you will. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's some additional coverage to assess a 2016 interview in Hipertextual (no idea about the reliability of that publication) A 2019 profile/interview in Máspormás. (No idea about this one either). Coverage of her nanogel in Paraguayan newspaper Ultima Hora. There's some weird claim that she was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, which I can't get my head around. The Máspormás profile says that this nomination was made by "The Council for Parity Democracy", supposedly a British organisation, which if it exists at all is very obscure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * this 2020 article in infobae (which is a legit newspaper, see infobae) explains the whole nobel prize claim: This is not the first time that Tessy López Goerne's professional ethics has been called into question, since she was accused in the past of taking advantage of an error by several Mexican media outlets that got confused and considered her a candidate for the Nobel Prize for Chemistry 2016. López Goerne was recognized by the Council for Parity Democracy in the United Kingdom in 2016, as one of the 270 women active in the field of the Nobel Prize and designated as one of the four scientists who could at some point be considered for obtaining the award. However, the recognition of the Council for Parity Democracy is not a nomination, nor does it have anything to do with the Nobel Prize, but in Mexico communicators with little technical knowledge of the subject got confused and dragged others with more experience along with them.. There seems to be a serious issue here between the uncritical profiles she has recieved in some publications, and the critical coverage her company has received in others. Not sure what to do about that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:PROF, WP:GNG and nobel prize claim sees to be false Wesoree (Talk) 19:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - She seems to be notable enough for an academic, but I am certainly not an expert in these type of deletion nominations. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not remotely enough impact yet to pass WP:Prof in her field: far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC).
 * The other GS profile with high cites, refers to a person with a differently spelt name who does not seem to appear in the authors lists. The situation lacks clarity: when in doubt delete. If supporting evidence emerges the BLP can be recreated. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC).
 * She does appear in the author lists, credited as "T. López". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That needs confirmation. Also, the name is different. This BLP seems to have too many fishy features for a keep at present. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC).


 * Delete. I don't see her meeting WP:NPROF criteria as an academic, but her notoriety might eventually let her meet WP:GNG if she gets more coverage of shady practices. The company may be notoriously notable for a similar reason. However at this point I agree with Xxanthippe that it's WP:TOOSOON. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment . I'm not understanding the two profiles; is "Tessy María López Goerner" at the same university really a different academic in a similar area? Espresso Addict (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The faculty catalogue only lists one "Tessy". And this Scopus profile includes papers with "Lopez-Goerne, T.M." and also "López, T." in the byline. And this profile at Tulane for "Tessy Lopez Goerne" (who apparently holds an adjunct/visiting position there) lists publications coauthored by "T. López". I'm not entirely sure what's going on with the two GS profiles, but it looks like we have one person who has published under two names (maybe a paternal surname and then both paternal and maternal surnames). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's the same subject, then Keep, per meeting WP:PROF on citations. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep under WP:NPROF/1. Her university lists her under Lopez Groene, Tessy Maria, and lists some of her papers. Those match up with Scopus that gives her a h-index of 47. I'm not sure what's going on with Google Scholar, it's possible there's more confusion with it's listing than just the name issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe the different naming system? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bit more than that, I don't believe all the papers in the uncertified Google Scholar entry are from the subject of this article. The article subject is T. López / Tessy Maria Lopez Groene, I believe the Groener scholar entry is Frankenstein creation of Google's processes. Google creates those listings using an automated process, so some funkiness is inevitable. But that's more an issue for Google than Wikipedia. We should look to the Scopus entry when considering the article subjects work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The situation may be more complicated than that. In order for a GS profile to become public, the creator of the profile has to activate the "Make profile public" link, which must have been done for both profiles here. The situation is still not clear. I agree that Scopus is likely more reliable, although that also has user-input features. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep. I am in the process of analyzing her coauthor citation profiles to see how she compares to others in her field. So far she is well above the average almost across the board, and far above the median in every parameter. I might update my !vote once I get more coauthors processed, but for now it's looking like a C1 keep. JoelleJay (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, looking at her 159 coauthors with 20+ papers on Scopus:
 * Top citation: average: 3709, median: 1532, Lopez-Goerne: 8277
 * Total papers: 117, 74, 256
 * h-index: 26, 21, 47
 * Top 5 papers: 1st: 392, 194, 250; 2nd: 192, 119, 240; 3rd: 145, 101, 222; 4th: 114, 86, 205; 5th: 101, 71, 205
 * 141 coauthors with 30+ papers:
 * TC: 4117, 2055; TP: 129, 82; h: 28, 23; 1: 429, 205; 2: 207, 131; 3: 157, 112; 4: 123, 96; 5: 109, 85.
 * Definitely holds up to the C1 pass. JoelleJay (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A word of warning: with Spanish/Portuguese/Arabic names GS/Scopus profiles are very often split into any combination and spelling of givenname1-givenname2-familyname1-familyname2 you can think of and many, many that you would not°. That's why it took me so long to get the Scopus analysis up--I ended up going through all of her 256 papers to get her coauthors ( because Scopus stupidly doesn't display more than 150 names (of static but unclear inclusion criteria) in its coauthor lists even in "search results format" (non-preview access only), despite their claims, and they wouldn't grant my request to gain API access for "academic research purposes" so I'm stuck doing this for everyone with 150+ collaborators ) and manually stitching together complete citation profiles + recalculating h-indices for the 20 or so who appeared multiple times under different profiles. I also searched non-repeated names that seemed especially likely to have been split. The latter is my standard approach with Scopus citation analyses, and it's kind of fun tracking names down and suggesting profile merges to Scopus, but...definitely also a big time sink.
 * °Like this prolific researcher who goes by a pseudonym and has at least 8 different Scopus profiles under the names "Xim Bokhimi", "Bokhimi", "B. Bokhimi", "José Guadalupe Ramírez Bokhimi", "Bokhimi A Aceves", "A. Aceves", "José G. Pérez-Ramirez", and "José Guadalupe Pérez-Ramirez", five of which appeared in Tessy López Goerne's coauthor list. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * With such complications I wonder if the system can be gamed. Do you see any indications here? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC).
 * I mean, the only way to really game it would be attempting to merge yourself into other profiles to get a better citation profile. I don't know what their review system of merge requests looks like but I imagine it's got at least some human oversight. Plus a lot of the profiles are linked to their ORCIDs so it would be hard to dupe that. So I don't think it's a problem at the moment. JoelleJay (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Google Scholar citation record is confusing as discussed above, but JoelleJay's analysis has convinced me of a pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2022 (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.