Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Schaack

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. Per consensus (non-admin closure) Nightfury 12:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Schaack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:PROF or general notability, or if she does, the article fails to explain why. Getting an NSF grant and tenure does not qualify one to get a Wikipedia page. Her h-index is 18, which is about standard for an associate prof. The user who started the article for Sarah Schaack is named Schaackmobile, which is presumably the individual herself (see Twitter profile here: https://twitter.com/schaackmobile?lang=en). This is a vanity page. It was apparently previously nominated for a speedy delete, but when that failed was never put up through the proper deletion process. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think the article about her in Nature, the Fulbright scholarship, and her high citation record (WP:PROF#C1) add up to notability. But as the nominator said, "Getting an NSF grant and tenure does not qualify one to get a Wikipedia page" — the article was previously written in a way that emphasized those picayune details, rather than anything that made Schaack notable. I have rewritten it to be shorter but I hope also to make notability clearer. As for the h-index, I am more interested in the top end of the citations (her Google scholar profile shows five publications with over 100 citations each) than in how many lower-level ones she has. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Revisions contributed by David Eppstein have established she meets WP:PROF, without question. My thanks for making this an easy call! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I had earlier (after the AfD nomination but before DE updates and revisions to the article) added a mention to the article regarding the Lynwood W. Swanson Promise for Scientific Research Award from the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust, which is a reasonably significant award, certainly counting towards WP:PROF#C1. A few comments to the nominator: The NSF grant in question was not an ordinary grant but a National Science Foundation CAREER Award. These grants are much more prestigious and harder to get than ordinary grants, and they do contribute to academic notability, at least somewhat. In fact I think this info should be re-added to the article. About the h-index of 18. There is no such thing as a standard h-index for an Associate Professor. H-index varies greatly by discipline (and also by the source of data used, GScholar, WebOfScience, Scopus etc). In lower citation disciplines like mathematics most full professors probably retire with GScholar h-index lower than 18. Sarah Schaack works in a higher citation field but still even there, for somebody to reach an h-index of 18 in ten years (her Phd is from 2008) looks impressive to me. In any case, I think there is enough here to satisfy [[WP:PROF#C1], for the reasons above and those given by David Eppsein. Nsk92 (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the CAREER should be added. For one thing, it's still just a grant. For another, it's restricted only to junior faculty. For a third, very many faculty get them, to the point where I've seen arguments that getting or not getting one should determine the outcome of a tenure case. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have particularly strong feelings about adding/not adding the CAREER grant info. I think I have sent in some other articles about academics, but maybe it shouldn't be there either. PECASE would have definitely merited a mention... Nsk92 (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Depending on the funding agency, an early career award may or may not be signifiant. For example, the Early Career Research Program award of the U.S. Department of Energy goes only to 35 scientists in all DOE-supported fields, and it's a 5-year grant of $150,000 annually for research and summer salary. That's significant in my book!—Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- meets WP:PROF and per article improvements. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Citations in GS are sufficient for this well-cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep passes WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2017 (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.