Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zan Armstrong


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Zan Armstrong

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A lot of primary sources, but not enough in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't appear to meet WP:NSCHOLAR.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does Armstrong publish under a different name or something? Scopus only has 5 papers from her, totaling 16 citations, which is obviously far below NPROF criteria. Routine lay coverage of research results is not enough for GNG either. JoelleJay (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Google Scholar has more, including a 75-citation paper in an online journal Distill. Scopus is ungood for computer science (because it focuses on journals and CS largely focuses on conferences) and ungood for non-commercial publishing (as an Elsevier project centered on traditionally published journals). You will get distorted results, not just smaller results, by missing both important publications by the subjects of your searches and citations to them from other CS publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks, I'll see what kind of comparisons I can pull from GS then. I do try to use a variety of indices for fields outside the natural sciences (AMS reviews and Current Index to Statistics for math/stats) and actually try to avoid non-theoretical CS papers for this reason, but didn't realize data visualization was also a conference-heavy area. Where do we stand on the arXiv here? Is there a Perelman of Data Science to push it into RS? JoelleJay (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, information visualization at least is conference-heavy. The top conference, IEEE Visualization publishes its proceedings in a journal, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, but some of the other conferences like PacificVis may still have separate proceedings, I'm not sure. ArXiv doesn't count as a publication. I'm also not sure whether the people who call it "data visualization" think of it as the same thing, as a branch of statistics rather than of computer science, or something else. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. neither GS nor Microsoft Academic have substantial citations, this in a field of high citation rates. Also no notable awards (silver of a non notable award). --hroest 00:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The citation record is not enough for WP:PROF in a high-citation area, and I don't think her infographic work has led to enough coverage to give her (rather than the infographics) GNG-type notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't pass NACADEMIC. I don't see a GNG or NAUTHOR pass for the infographic work.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 14:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete  non notable Devokewater (talk)  10:54, 3 June 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.