Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maithra Raghu

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maithra Raghu

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete:

Hello!

I think that this article should be deleted for the following reasons: 1. The subject here is a research scientist at Google Brain. There are several thousands of research scientists (2241 researchers to be precise, please see https://research.google/people/) at Google and that itself doesn't warrant a wikipedia article to someone. This is not a prestigious position. 2. Most of the research scientists at Google and anyone who has a PhD typically has a number of papers and have at least a couple of news articles each if not more. That is also not a reason to provide a wikipedia article to someone. 3. I am familiar with the broad area of deep neural networks. While this subject has done some research, she does not stand out in anyway. 4. Another fishy aspect is that the spouse (Arun Chaganty, please see https://maithraraghu.com/assets/files/thesis_final.pdf) of this subject has started and written the article. 5. The only aspect that stands out to any degree about this applicant is Forbes 30 Under 30. Note that Forbes 30 Under 30 List comprises of 600 people each year. So, it is not as selective as well. I am not sure that alone is enough to call this subject a notable person. (the other honor STAT wunderkind is not even well recognized).

Given the above reasons, I propose the deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliciaBennot (talk • contribs) 13:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi!

I am a deep learning engineer/researcher myself. I was requested by one of the editors to take a look at the subject of this article. I have been working in deep learning for several years now and I am very much familiar with this individual's research. I agree that this person hasn't done any notable work and/or does not hold or never held any prestigious positions. Her main USP seems to be writing papers with well known individuals. But, that does not really qualify anyone as a notable person who deserves a wiki entry. I know several PhD students who have made more impactful contributions than this individual but again it's not possible to have a wiki page for every PhD in the world. As an ardent wiki user, I would like to see individuals who really stand out as notable people on wikipedia, and this individual doesn't fit the bill at this time.

I also find it very inappropriate that people close to her (OP says spouse?) are writing her wiki article. If everybody started doing this, every individual who works at Google Brain or who holds a PhD will have a wikipedia article and I don't think the bar for a wiki article is that low. OP already commented about Forbes 30 Under 30 and STAT Wunderkind. Other award listed "Rising Stars" is not really an award. It indicates participation in a workshop. No woman in a PhD program in engineering has ever been turned down from attending that workshop. This article made me wonder if I should write my own wikipedia page because I can list more awards and talk about more research and I am at a more senior position, but no I won't do that. I don't think that's the point of a wiki article. It is NOT YOUR PERSONAL WEBPAGE. Only people of reasonable public interest, with a ton of super impactful achievements, and/or in prestigious positions should be included here. Not every person in a big tech company deserves a spot. I am sorry to be blunt but someone needs to tell the subject of this article and her personal connections this very clearly.

I am sure she has a great career ahead of her and she will do more things in the future. But, at this point in time, I support the deletion of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeplearner99 (talk • contribs) .

Comment: — Deeplearner99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Longhair\^talk 05:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her thesis was published in 2020, and I'm not convinced passes
WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment This article has been trimmed quite a lot by the nominator, and I also note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AliciaBennot. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete this is a borderline case, on the one hand this subject is very early in her career but her GS is reasonably impressive even in a high citation field: 7 papers with 100+ citations of which 4 are first author papers. This is clearly not just a researcher who "writes papers with famous people" as the nominator alleges. On the other hand, the long-term impact of this research is clearly not established and there is an argument that this is simply TOOSOON. Note: this is a field where a paper can garner 25k citations per year and we do not have articles about many of these authors in the ML field. --hroest 18:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A very recent grad is exceptionally unlikely to have made an independent name for herself sufficient to meet NPROF, so while she has an excellent start it is far TOOSOON for a standalone article on her. I tallied all her Scopus citations and manually added in all the doi-indexed citations to her arXiv preprints. I then looked at the Scopus metrics of all her coauthors (35; Scopus coauthors plus the ones from arXiv submissions, and including undergrads with one paper), and even though I didn't add any of her coauthors' arXiv citations to their metrics (which would roughly double them) she was still well below the median. Total citations: average: 12674, median: 1639, Raghu: 804 (435 from Scopus). Total papers: avg: 61, med: 34, R: 26 (Sc: 13). h-index: avg: 25, med: 16, R: 13 (Sc: 7). Top 5 papers: 1st: avg: 3451, med: 386, R: 131. 2nd: avg: 1709, med: 245, R: 124. 3rd: avg: 908, med: 172, R: 100. 4th: avg: 694, med: 154, R: 80. 5th: avg: 630, med: 109, R: 62. JoelleJay (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources present are not reliable and the information is inadequate, fails notability too.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discussion page was never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the article itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 22:42, 20 August 2021 (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.