Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ursula Reinstein


 * 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. Consensus is that WP:NACADEMIC and WP:PROF are not met at this time. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Ursula Reinstein

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * As Ursula Heczko:
 * As Ursula Heczko:

With regret. I can't find evidence that this scientist meets WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Ajpolino (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - For those interested in her publication record, per Notability_(academics). According to SCOPUS she has published 6 papers, all apparently while in Brett Finlay's group. She is the first author on 4 of the 6. Those 4 are cited by 58, 41, 29, and 26 documents. She is a middle author on two papers, one cited in 89 documents and one in 26 documents. Per the average professor test, in my opinion this is well below the average number of papers and citations among microbiology academics. Ajpolino (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Her discovery was on the cover of The Journal of Infectious Diseases, it quite a notable scientific achievement obviously. Scientists are notable by their achievements, they don't do interviews and get written up in popular news media.  Wikipedia isn't just about popular culture, its educational as well.  She meets WP:NACADEMIC.   D r e a m Focus  17:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * What name does she publish under? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC).
 * Scopus shows no publications under her married name. All the citations I mentioned above are under her maiden name Ursula Heczko. If she published under some other name now, I may have missed it. Ajpolino (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Found more than a dozen publications via Google Scholar authored and/or co-authored by the subject under her maiden name (Heczko), easily meeting WP:NACADEMIC. The subject meets WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Which category of WP:NACADEMIC does she easily meet? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC).
 * Response and Comment - The 1st category of WP:NACADEMIC. The subject worked in academia in a post-doctoral position at the University of British Columbia, where she discovered a prevention for the colonization of e-coli E. coli, a notable academic achievement which prompted the cover article in The Journal of Infectious Diseases - a major publication with a national reach (if not internationally). Coupled with the subject's other scientific research, much of which is cited in other scientific national publications, plus she has co-authored her research in scientific peer-reviewed journals, including the American Journal of Physiology here, the subject passes WP:NACADEMIC. (Note: It is commonplace for those in academia and science to co-write articles with colleagues in their field and does not diminish their roles. Rather, it enhances their roles by having distinguished peers co-author with them.) Using her married and maiden names, I found two more sources and added them to the article. Based on the Wiki article in its current shape, my !vote remains Keep. The subject meets general notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Greetings, AuthorAuthor. You wrote that you "found more than a dozen publications via Google Scholar authored and/or co-authored by the subject under her maiden name," in which case she's "easily meeting WP:NACADEMIC." However, nowhere in WP:NACADEMIC is there a criterion whereby numerous publications suffice. Otherwise, we'd drown under articles about persons who have simply published academic papers! Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, The Gnome. I mentioned the number of publications because at least one editor in this AfD commented that the number of publications authored by the subject appeared to be lacking. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine. So, as it turns out, the number of publications authored by the subject is not lacking. This still does not enable the subject to "easily meet WP:NACADEMIC," as you claimed. That's the point. -The Gnome (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. I found only six publications authored by her on GS as part of a research group. Some decent citations (which is all that counts for notability) but not nearly enough to pass WP:Prof in this very highly cited field: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC).
 * Another comment - Sorry to pester. I don't have a vested interest in the outcome of this discussion either way, but I'd like to point out that I believe keeping this article on the grounds of WP:NPROF would be an unusually broad application of that guideline. The guideline is most commonly used to justify keeping or creating articles on professors whose work is highly cited (as a proxy for highly impactful). While Ursula Reinstein is an author on several papers, that work is not highly cited. Also she was not an independent researcher at the time, but was either a graduate student in Martin Reifinger's lab, or a Postdoctoral researcher in Brett Finlay's lab. To consider someone notable under WP:NPROF entirely for work done under the supervision of other scientists would be highly unusual. Or at least it's not something I've seen before. If we consider this level of academic impact to meet the first NPROF criterion, then we should consider clarifying this at WP:NPROF as nearly all professors at research universities and many postdocs will have a similar number/impact of publications. Also, having your work featured on the cover of a journal does not necessarily indicate unusually high impact (which is why we use citations as a proxy for impact instead). Last thing, you mention meeting WP:GNG; I couldn't find any independent sources that substantially cover Ursula Reinstein. I may have missed some that cover her maiden name? Could you elaborate on why you feel she meets GNG? Thanks. Sorry for the long message. Ajpolino (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note that the article was created by User:Dzreinstein who has also contributed substantially to Dan Reinstein and was informed about Wikipedia's COI policy on his talk page four years ago. Pam  D  09:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not have enough citations to pass WP:NACADEMIC #1, the only one that would be relevant. I find no other coverage of her at all, so nothing to meet WP:BASIC either, sadly. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, since subject does not meet WP:NACADEMIC #1. As PamD pointed out, the contested-article's creator appears to be the subject herself; her two contributions to Wikipedia seem to be two articles, this one and another about her husband, Dan Reinstein, in which almost all sources are papers written by Reinstein. The strong aroma of promotion only amplifies the case for elimination. -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I think the editor is more likely to be the husband - but either way there's clear WP:COI. Pam  D  12:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - not only does this fail WP:NACADEMIC, but it looks like it's a clear COI. I would also suggest nominating Dan Reinstein for deletion as well. Skirts89 (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Dan Reinstein likely passes WP:Prof but at least needs clean-up to prune promotional bloat. An AfD could be considered. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC).


 * Delete. Citation counts (on Google Scholar under author:U-Heczko) not enough to make a convincing case for WP:PROF and there seems to be nothing else. Being first author on the cover story of a journal issue is certainly not a significant enough honor by itself for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Xxanthippe and David Eppstein. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is very borderline. Though her most cited paper haas 111 citations, the overall body of work is not significant. Additionally, the manner of writing is indicative of promotionalism -- the only way this was gotten to even look like an articles was to list each of the small nuber of papers three times--once in the publications list, once in the discussion of what she has worked on, and once in the list of journals in which she published. I have rarely seen this done here so blatantly. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per all above. Too less cite-count in a field like microbiology. &#x222F; WBG converse 16:02, 25 January 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.