Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Ann Raghanti

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. This nomination has been withdrawn but I'm closing this as a regular Keep rather than a Speedy Keep to note that the consensus is to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ann Raghanti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Biological anthropologist with an h-factor of 34 and no major awards, created on Oct 2 by a user with (currently) 30 edits. Page is a badly written stub without much information. She has a good career, but I am not convinced she is notable as yet. Page was tagged for notability by User:Ipigott on Oct 3 and I draftified it on Oct 4. Tags removed and page moved to mainspace on Oct 7; claim by original author that she is notable, with no further explanation, attempt to meet any of WP:NPROF or reach concensus. Only possible notability claim is as a co-author of an Ig-nobel prize paper. I am not sure if we consider that enough. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Brief ping of @Ipigott to ensure they get a notice. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I personally remain not convinced, particularly about AAAS. I remember being told by a very distinguished chemist who was NAS and an h-factor of 145 that nobody considered it that meaningful (he was FAAAS plus a large string of major awards). I also remain with reservations about the IgNobel. However, the concensus is clearly different so I am going to withdraw the nomination (if I can work out how to without more coffee). Ldm1954 (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Notability seems possible. Her CV lists multiple news stories (last 2 pages) that might prove notability. Two I pulled out quickly: Science article covering her research and written summary from an audio/radio interview on public radio. She's also an elected fellow of American Association for the Advancement of Science and has an article explaining why she was elected to AAAS on EurekAlert but originally posted on Kent University's site, but not self written. She is an Ig Nobel Prize Winner and last author usually conveys a larger part in the paper (although she isn't the corresponding author).

Cyanochic (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think Fellow of the AAAS is enough for WP:PROF#C3, her citations are at least enough to make a case for #C1, the IgNobel may not be a major award but it carries a lot of publicity, and she's had a fair amount of other publicity for her work: along with the sources listed above, here are a couple more in Smithsonian and Scientific American. Bad nomination and bad draftification, as many of these signs and sources for notability were already present in the draftified version. It was very stubby but not badly sourced for what it was. You'll be lucky if the article author persists in contributing here rather than getting bitten by your bad nomination piled onto a bad draftification and leaving the project forever. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I strongly disagree about Fellow of AAAS, that is not one that should ever count towards #C3. They elect ~500 per year from among people who have been paying dues. I also strongly disagree about her citations, by comparison to others in her field they are low - I checked, did you? She is in a medium citation field, and most of her well cited papers have more than 5 authors (sometimes far more) with her somewhere in the middle.

  If you feel the Ignobel is major, then OK, that is your opinion but I do not particularly considering the topic. Some of the Ignobel papers are real science, some are a joke and not WP:Sustained. This one is a joke. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  N. B., you may not know that composites where one of the components is ice is a high school/intro MSE experiment, e.g. Boeing link. (We used to do this as a lab demonstration in the intro to ceramics MSE class.) If you look at the Ignobel paper they say the knife melted, that should have been caught by a referee. The paper has decent news coverage (27) but only 14 cites. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Eppstein.--Ipigott (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep AAAS fellow meets criteria #3 of WP:PROF. The AAAS names <0.4% of each section of the society as a fellow, which meets the "highly selective" criteria described in WP:PROF. DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. AAAS fellow looks a little less prestigious than e.g. IEEE fellow, but I think it's enough for NPROF C3. The citation record is solid enough to give some support, and the Ignobel looks to give some progress towards GNG for a possible combined notability case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The nominator seems unaware of notability guidelines. I am concerned about their NPP actions. Could someone please re-review their actions? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A classic example of attempted retaliation by @TheBirdsShedTears because I tagged an article of his as being of unclear notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2024 (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.