Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beata Nowok

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. There is consensus that the subject doesn't meet

WP:PROF#C1 has not currently been met. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Beata Nowok

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Beata Nowok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

WP:PROF#C1". Unfortunately, when I look at GScholar, I see one co-authored paper at 169 citations, then few more at 90 citations and below. I don't see a single solo-citaiton, and the count drops of quickly (10th result in GS is at 17 cites. I don't see how this meets the C1 "made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed"? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How can we judge scientific notability? By WP:PROF, with the criterion of being influential in the field, or being and authority in the field, and the standard interpretation that this is shown by highly cited articles in good peeer--reviewed journals, or books from major university presses; it is exactly the difficulty of showing it by references or mentions in the usual sense that led us 12 years ago to WP::PROF (there was also the argument, that the discussions of the work of the subject in the citing article --this doesnt happen in all citing articles, but it does happen in 1 in 10, more in some fields like the humanities, less in those fields that cite everything possible. But this argument would lead to the conclusion that everyone who as at least as assistant professor in a research university would have such discussions, If anyone challenges WP:PROF, we can always go back to it. It will about quadruple the number of academic bios. There's also the argument that everyone appointed associate professor or higher in a research university is appointed specifically because they are enough of an influence in the field to attract postdoc and graduate studies tot he university; These arguments take time and work, so it's nice to have a shortcut by counting citations, especially since that's universally accepted in the academic world, and which corresponds more clossly to what most of the longer-term WPedians think should be academic notability . Myself, I consider the appointment to tenure (which = associate professor) at a first rate university to be equivalent to the major leagues in sports, so I and I suspect many of the newer people here with academic backgrounds would indeed support a much more inclusive standard than the present WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support a more inclusive standard, but since the old consensus was pretty restrictive, I think we need to enforce it. Ping me if you suggest more relax criteria, and I am very likely to support them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the interpretation of "influential" is made by decisions at AfD, just as for other key terms dealing with notability. The wording would stay the same even if theeffective standard were higher or lower. DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added some more sources. Had this been at afc, I would have accepted it as passing
    WP:PROF#C1. Theroadislong (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
If it passes AfC, its because one thinks it will pass afd. That's the only requirement at AfC. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The standard for biomedicine is now 2 with over 100; everything else is less.
Until about 2 or 3 years ago it was 1 with more than 100. The increasing number of publications caused the consensus here to shift. . DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At biomedicine, there is an established standard of 2 papers with over 100 cites each, as shown in the last 100 or so AfDs. (earllier than that, it was 1 paper with over 100 cites). Citation numbers depend upon publication density and citation density in papers, and biomedicine had a much greater density in each regard than in anything else, because of the large nuber of journals and the expectation that one cites everything. This comes very close, with 169 and 90. Only the highest numbers matter, because, obviously enough, its the best work that should be influential, and by definition the work that's influential is the most cited work. Nobody become notable by their lower quality papers, no matter how many. One becomes influential by doing somethign important; as analogy, it's the few charting record that make a musician notable, not the many that don't. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: Interesting, but can you link to a discussion where there is consensus that biomedicine has such low citations? In all honesty, my citations in my field (sociology) are very similar (except I am mostly a solo author, and not a co-author like the subject...), yet I think I am too junior to deserve a Wikipedia article... :P --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
as you know, Piotrus nobody is very good at judging how important or notable they are. It works in both directions. Google Scholar shows your citations as 181, 113, 75, 52, 38, 34 so I would conclude that you are notable by our standards --unless we should decide not to count them seriously because their subject is analysis of Wikipedia. Piotrus, you, not I, are presently a researcher--why not analyse the level of citations for academics in various fields for keep and deleted AfDs for different years, and see for yourself? It should get you another paper. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. It is actually not a bad idea for a paper, AND would give use a quantitative benchmark for our discussions to boot. I'll add it to my list of ideas to work on :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see the citability data here as sufficient for satisfying
    WP:TOOSOON case to me. Nsk92 (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has been published as the author in peer-reviewed journals for a number of years. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, seriously, this is just regular work, just like teaching classes and so on. Every academic publishes peer-reviewed paper for a number of years. Well, at least those who are doing their job, because I know quite a few who can't even do that, but even so, being reasonably competent in one's job doesn't make one notable. See
    WP:NPROF. Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
saying "every academic publishes articles..." but most publish only 1 or 2, and very few papers ever get 100 citations. It is certainly true that is is normal for full professors at major universities. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beata_Nowok&oldid=1017887967"