Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuriko Saito


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Yuriko Saito

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and professor bio specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, Philosophy, Japan, United States of America,  and Rhode Island. UtherSRG (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets NPROF with >1000 citations on a solo-authored book chapter, 1000 on a coauthored paper , and many hundreds more on other works   . (addendum Thanks to David Eppstein below for noting the messy profile. I've updated my comment as such, but my !vote remains the same. &mdash;siro&chi;o 19:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Her Google Scholar profile is a mess of unrelated works, but I agree that the ones by her on aesthetics are heavily cited (especially for philosophy), enough for WP:PROF. Additionally, I found enough book reviews (and added them to the article) to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just considering the works on aesthetics the subject appears sufficiently cited to meet WP:PROF (1174,257,227,220,119). Additionally David Eppstein has shown the subject meets WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments above. --JackFromWisconsin (talk &#124; contribs) 16:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. A GS list that is, as David says, "a mess of unrelated works" is almost always a strong indicator that GS has again screwed-up. If you look closer, you will find that most of the highly-cited contributions in this GS listing (with the exception of the Everyday Aesthetics chapter) were not authored by the subject, but rather by other, similarly-named individuals at other institutions. Aside from the EA chapter, she seems to several other papers with >100 cites, but it tails-off quickly from there. To me, this is borderline, so I'll refrain from !vote. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's merely an indicator that the subject has not curated their GS profile. GS always screws up, but with a fair amount of effort you can clean up your profile. Not everyone does this (nor should they be expected to) but when they don't it makes the profile not much better than searching the author's name yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - NPROF, as this is an impressively accomplished and published philosopher author. Impressive sourcing, encapsulated on her Rhode Island School of Design profile, is more of the overall.  You can find more on various searches. — Maile  (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Per comments that have already been made. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2023 (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.