- 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) 00:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Irina Nenciu
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Irina Nenciu ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of this article is an Associate Professor, and does not pass WP:NPROF. Mccapra ( talk) 17:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 17:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 17:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 17:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 17:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 19:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete An associate professor, h-index only 8, citations under 400 (according to google scholar), awards don't seem overly prestiguous to me. Kj cheetham ( talk) 08:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I tend to agree that she doesn't show notability: what a pity that the student editor involved has not been better advised about choice of topic, as they've put in a lot of work and produced a good-looking article, properly sourced etc (OK, the lead could do with some tweaking as her marriage doesn't belong there, etc). If this article had survived we might have had a skillful new editor: if it is deleted we're more likely to have one disappointed student ex-editor - though I suppose the course grade is their sole goal, rather than a surviving Wikipedia article. @ Helaine (Wiki Ed) and Ian (Wiki Ed): Who chose or approved the topics? Pam D 09:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. The student editor has done a very good job with their editing, but unfortunately unless something turns up in this discussion, they've worked on an unsuitable topic.
Mccapra (
talk)
09:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- And having now found a different page for the course, I see that
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Pensworth Reagor is a similar sad case. Most of the other students don't appear to have made any contributions at all (or perhaps are working in sandboxes: red links, anyway), though the one working on
Jocelyn Bell Burnell doesn't seem to have made any edits to the existing substantial article.
Pam
D
10:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- @
PamD: Some sort of miscommunication about notability occurred with that class. When we realised (back in February, maybe) we asked the instructor to tell their students not to move their work to mainspace, and for the most part the students did as asked. This article is one of several that made it to mainspace anyway.
Ian (Wiki Ed) (
talk)
16:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @ Ian (Wiki Ed): Thanks for the reply. How sad for the students. I hope communication works better on future courses, and that despite this muddle some of the students might get hooked on editing! Pam D 17:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @
PamD: Some sort of miscommunication about notability occurred with that class. When we realised (back in February, maybe) we asked the instructor to tell their students not to move their work to mainspace, and for the most part the students did as asked. This article is one of several that made it to mainspace anyway.
Ian (Wiki Ed) (
talk)
16:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- And having now found a different page for the course, I see that
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Pensworth Reagor is a similar sad case. Most of the other students don't appear to have made any contributions at all (or perhaps are working in sandboxes: red links, anyway), though the one working on
Jocelyn Bell Burnell doesn't seem to have made any edits to the existing substantial article.
Pam
D
10:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. The student editor has done a very good job with their editing, but unfortunately unless something turns up in this discussion, they've worked on an unsuitable topic.
Mccapra (
talk)
09:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete. It looks a bit WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF. She does have one very highly cited paper, which someone might be able to base a keep argument upon. And she publishes in solid journals. But her overall count of citations (h-index, etc) look a little low for WP:NPROF C1, particularly given that she's an associate professor (even in a lower-citation field like math). The awards listed are all local and/or early career. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 10:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for academics. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete. In principle, I would like to include as many articles about successful women mathematicians as possible, and her tenured position, ongoing grant funding, and well-cited (for mathematics) research record show that she is indeed being successful. But in this case, there is only one thing that can be used to justify an article according to WP:PROF, the citation count for her highest-cited paper, and I just don't think one reasonably well received but not absolutely first rank paper and no other evidence of notability is enough. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete as WP:Too soon. Even for mathematicians her citations are weak. May improve later. Give it time. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:27, 20 May 2020 (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.
- 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) 00:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Irina Nenciu
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Irina Nenciu ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of this article is an Associate Professor, and does not pass WP:NPROF. Mccapra ( talk) 17:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 17:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 17:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 17:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 17:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 19:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete An associate professor, h-index only 8, citations under 400 (according to google scholar), awards don't seem overly prestiguous to me. Kj cheetham ( talk) 08:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I tend to agree that she doesn't show notability: what a pity that the student editor involved has not been better advised about choice of topic, as they've put in a lot of work and produced a good-looking article, properly sourced etc (OK, the lead could do with some tweaking as her marriage doesn't belong there, etc). If this article had survived we might have had a skillful new editor: if it is deleted we're more likely to have one disappointed student ex-editor - though I suppose the course grade is their sole goal, rather than a surviving Wikipedia article. @ Helaine (Wiki Ed) and Ian (Wiki Ed): Who chose or approved the topics? Pam D 09:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. The student editor has done a very good job with their editing, but unfortunately unless something turns up in this discussion, they've worked on an unsuitable topic.
Mccapra (
talk)
09:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- And having now found a different page for the course, I see that
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Pensworth Reagor is a similar sad case. Most of the other students don't appear to have made any contributions at all (or perhaps are working in sandboxes: red links, anyway), though the one working on
Jocelyn Bell Burnell doesn't seem to have made any edits to the existing substantial article.
Pam
D
10:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- @
PamD: Some sort of miscommunication about notability occurred with that class. When we realised (back in February, maybe) we asked the instructor to tell their students not to move their work to mainspace, and for the most part the students did as asked. This article is one of several that made it to mainspace anyway.
Ian (Wiki Ed) (
talk)
16:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @ Ian (Wiki Ed): Thanks for the reply. How sad for the students. I hope communication works better on future courses, and that despite this muddle some of the students might get hooked on editing! Pam D 17:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @
PamD: Some sort of miscommunication about notability occurred with that class. When we realised (back in February, maybe) we asked the instructor to tell their students not to move their work to mainspace, and for the most part the students did as asked. This article is one of several that made it to mainspace anyway.
Ian (Wiki Ed) (
talk)
16:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- And having now found a different page for the course, I see that
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Pensworth Reagor is a similar sad case. Most of the other students don't appear to have made any contributions at all (or perhaps are working in sandboxes: red links, anyway), though the one working on
Jocelyn Bell Burnell doesn't seem to have made any edits to the existing substantial article.
Pam
D
10:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. The student editor has done a very good job with their editing, but unfortunately unless something turns up in this discussion, they've worked on an unsuitable topic.
Mccapra (
talk)
09:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete. It looks a bit WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF. She does have one very highly cited paper, which someone might be able to base a keep argument upon. And she publishes in solid journals. But her overall count of citations (h-index, etc) look a little low for WP:NPROF C1, particularly given that she's an associate professor (even in a lower-citation field like math). The awards listed are all local and/or early career. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 10:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for academics. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete. In principle, I would like to include as many articles about successful women mathematicians as possible, and her tenured position, ongoing grant funding, and well-cited (for mathematics) research record show that she is indeed being successful. But in this case, there is only one thing that can be used to justify an article according to WP:PROF, the citation count for her highest-cited paper, and I just don't think one reasonably well received but not absolutely first rank paper and no other evidence of notability is enough. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete as WP:Too soon. Even for mathematicians her citations are weak. May improve later. Give it time. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:27, 20 May 2020 (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.