Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Shan Lin (chemist)


 * 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. A borderline case where the citation metrics are laid bare for everyone to see. At the end of the day, reasonable people examined the data and came to different subjective conclusions, so there is no policy-based reason for any result other than that supported by the majority. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yu-Shan Lin (chemist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Associate prof, seems a bit run of the mill, has an early career award, plus "Machine Learning in the Chemical Sciences & Engineering Award" doesn't seem notable as it's the inaugural award of it. I don't see how this article passes WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. I don't have a feel for if the citations are suitably high to pass on that basis, but I'm doubting it. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The Junior Faculty award is peanuts, but the Dreyfus Program award isn't - it comes with ~$100k. H-index in the 20s is generally regarded as okay around here, I believe. Not a celebrity but a scientist who is getting noticed, so I would say this is a weak keep. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Struck as per below. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , I'm hesitant to consider an inaugural, non-wiki-notable prize of the Dreyfus Foundation as an example of (emphasis mine) certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts. Unlike the other NPROF C2 examples, it is not awarded to an individual specifically in recognition of their prior contributions or scholarly potential but rather is disbursed for a specific research project (the program even states Awards are not made directly to individuals). This is substantiated by Dr. Lin's website, which says Our lab receives the Dreyfus Program for Machine Learning in the Chemical Sciences & Engineering Award! This is a collaborative project with Prof. James Murphy in the Department of Mathematics at Tufts. which indicates the project is co-headed. To me, the prize is essentially the same as any other private research grant secured by PIs, which would seem to be in a different spirit from the intent of C2. I do think it partially satisfies C1, but just isn't quite at the level for C2. JoelleJay (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * These are good points. I agree. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Not a fan of this being written by a COI author. Even with this award, she's still an early career associate prof and this is too soon. Many of the publications in the h-index have 6+ authors so not as indicative, and there is no significant coverage about the subject here at all. Reywas92Talk 18:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no CoI issue with article creation because it came through AfC. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per WP:NPROF#1 this is not stellar but passes the bar with an h-index of 24 and 13 papers with > 100 citations. --hroest 18:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * NPROF1 says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Merely looking at raw citations of papers, of which she is one of many authors, does not demonstrate that they have "a significant impact" and is not shown in "sources", which would involve independent media coverage. Reywas92Talk 14:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources here do not actually imply media coverage (where did you get that idea?) but also citations counters like Google Scholar/Scopus. This is literally clarified in Notes 1.a "(a) The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." So using citation counters is the most typical way to satisfy criterion 1. I agree that her citations and h-index are not extraordinary, but they pass the bar for someone who has had a "significant impact" on their field. --hroest 17:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the rest of the guideline. "Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others." This does not satisfy criterion 1. There really needs to be more substantive independent coverage with some depth beyond merely counting citations, including indicating what the "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" actually is. Reywas92Talk 17:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, citation metrics need to be interpreted within their context of the database and discipline of the subject.That is exactly what I (and others) here are doing. You are setting standards that are way higher than what WP:NPROF requires and what is required in other AfD discussion. You are making very strong leaps from what is written in NPROF, "Approaching with caution" does not equal "does not satisfy criterion 1". Nowhere in WP:NPROF does it require "substantive independent coverage with some depth", on the contrary it is quite clear that citations metrics or one (of multiple) ways to satisfy criterion 1 and show substantial impact in the field. --hroest 20:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , is correct that independent coverage is not necessary for NPROF; unlike practically every other SNG (like NSPORT), where meeting the criteria presumes notability but GNG ultimately must be demonstrated, NPROF operates completely outside of GNG requirements. I do think identifying what her "significant impact" is would be beneficial for sussing out what is DUE in the article, but isn't necessary for notability discussions unless other criteria aren't applicable. JoelleJay (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think it's applicable to say "Her articles have a number of citations, screw substantive sources." I understand NPROF works a bit differently, but it's not adequate to say there is "a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" merely on low-quality metrics without evidence of independent assertion that not only are these publications impactful, but that this junior faculty author in particular has had significant impact. It's absurd that this SNG would go from multiple sources of substance to zero sources of anything. Reywas92Talk 16:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * if you are unhappy with the way WP:NPROF operates, please take it to the talk page there and dont disrail the AfD discussion of one person by applying different standards to this AfD than all others. To be fair and consistent, we should apply the same standards to all articles and the applicable ones in this case are WP:NPROF. There are very good reasons why WP:NPROF is the way it is. --hroest 18:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And you're applying NPROF poorly by doing nothing but looking at the h-index. Reywas92Talk 19:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your helpful assessment of my abilities, while I wait for a detailed academic assessment of her work from you that goes beyond your contribution "she has many co-authors". --hroest 14:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Dr. Lin's Scopus citation metrics are around the median of 175 of her coauthors and coauthors-of-coauthors in this field (paper cutoff 14):
 * Total citations: avg: 6109, med: 2001, Lin: 2449.
 * Total papers: avg: 110, med: 53, L: 53.
 * h-index: avg: 30, med: 20, L: 23.
 * Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 605, med: 275, L: 285. 2nd: avg: 348, med: 181, L: 253. 3rd: avg: 252, med: 136, L: 147. 4th: avg: 210, med: 118, L: 126. 5th: avg: 181, med: 106, L: 124.
 * Top first-author: avg: 339, med: 147, L: 124. JoelleJay (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that she's a chemist and papers in chemistry have a little over half the impact factor of other biomed sciences; in particular she is working in computational chemistry, which generally has fewer authors per papers: most of her papers have one to three coauthors. I tend to think the baseline you are using for comparison is somewhat too high for her field. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the input! Are you saying she has a couple biomed papers with many coauthors who mainly publish in biomed rather than chemistry, and they are therefore inflating the coauthor metrics? I did try to exclude people who were in very different fields from the analysis (for example, there were a ton of collaborators of her coauthor Martin Zanni that published in "youth education" rather than chem, and several who focused on SWNTs which are a different-enough topic from vibrational spectra of water and spectroscopic examination of protein folding that I also filtered them out), but I potentially missed some. On the other hand, her having biomed papers and coauthors would certainly elevate her own citation metrics above those of her pure-computational chem peers, so it might not be appropriate to remove her direct coauthors in those disciplines either. JoelleJay (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - on a formal reading of NPROF, I could justify a weak keep separately on either the award of a new research achievement prize from a reasonably prestigious foundation, per, or arguing her research output falls this side of the publication output divide, per . While I can see the delete case, its a pretty abstract deletionist defence of the NPROF standard not backed by any concrete problems with the article. Generally, I think these arguments are insensitive to the reasons why NPROF is the SNG that is definitely more relaxed than GNG: articles that pass NPROF but not GNG tend to be encyclopedic, verifiable, lack issues, and often make good merge targets for ATD outcomes of borderline science concepts. I don't find the delete rationale compelling, and the article as it stands is of decent quality. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Week Keep - a borderline case, but I think just enough notability re NPROF with a good chance of becoming more notable in time. KylieTastic (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per a decent article about an early career scientist with early career awards despite a narrow and somewhat novel field of research. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as she appears to meet NPROF, albeit narrowly.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Given her awards and sufficiently high citation. My very best wishes (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2021 (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.