Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danai Koutra

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danai Koutra

[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)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are either not WP:INDEPENDENT, having been published by her employers, UC Berkeley and University of Michigan, or to articles about awards that appear to fall short of what is required by WP:NACADEMIC. One of the links, to the Mathematics Genealogy Project, isn't even about the subject, it's about someone named Jure Leskovec. None of the other criteria in WP:NACADEMIC appears to be satisfied. The subject is an assistant professor, not a full professor, she does not hold a named chair, she's not been elected to "a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society", and her profile on Google Scholar indicates only 2141 citations, far short of "significant impact". Searching with Google, I was unable to find any suitable sources to establish notability. It's clear this is a smart academic who may at some point become notable but the evidence is not there yet. Msnicki (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~. GS profile on GS is ~~quite~~ just enough to pass WP:Prof#C1, ~~particularly for pure math~~ in computer science (maybe). Xxanthippe (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

But her publications are in computer science, not pure math. And 2147 citations and an H-index of 22 are not big numbers in computer science. Her most-cited paper has only 518 citations; again, not a big number in CS. Impressive numbers start at around 10K citations, an H-index of about 40 and a paper with around 2000 citations. Here, for comparison, are just a few of the Google Scholar profiles of of her colleagues in the same department, all of whom swamp her: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. If we accept your argument, pretty nearly every member of the entire department would be considered notable. Msnicki (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Danai Koutra has made significant contributions in graph mining and summarization. She is highly regarded in her field: she is the recipient of the prestigious NSF CAREER award; also an ARO Young Investigator award. Number of citations is comparable to other full professors in the same department (e.g., [8], [9]), and much higher than other computer scientists on Wikipedia (e.g., Michael_Pound, Florian_Neukart) --Akatuma (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC) — Akatuma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's not obvious that any of these four other computer scientists are notable. The two colleagues at Michigan that you've identified are at the bottom of the entire department in terms of citations and, so far as I know, have never been proposed as notable nor do I believe they are notable. The two BLPs you cite lack the usual multiple independent RS we usually expect as evidence of notability. And while the NSF award is labeled a "career" award, it's not actually in recognition of achievements but intended to support early career development. Same with Young Investigator Award. Both of these recognize potential, not achievement. (I conceded in my nomination that she has the former, just not the latter.) At best, you're offering an argument that amounts to WP:WHATABOUTX or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (or doesn't, in the case of her two colleagues at Michigan). This is not a compelling argument at AfD. Msnicki (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The two colleagues at Michigan are full professors, who have been promoted to this rank because of their notability. Such promotions are done based on a strong record of scholarly achievement, and based on letters from the research community that demonstrate impact and international stature. Both the NSF CAREER award and the Young Investigator Award are highly selective, so while they indeed provide financial support, they are a recognition of the recipient's achievements. Akatuma (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could find nothing that shows the subject meets any of the criteria in WP:NACADEMIC (note: the "prestigious" award mentioned in the article is an award from the NSF for junior faculty); the subject also seems to fail to meet WP:GNG based on searching I've done. Also worth noting that the 'Media' section has three articles, all of which give Koutra a mere passing mention. Comment: This article reeks of COI editing (like the 'Media' section), which can further be seen in its creator's edit history (all of the articles have to do with CS professors at the University of Michigan). In general, this article feels like WP:MASK. Those other articles, I would argue, should be looked into as well. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC, taking into account comments above as to what would be in enough for a computer scientist, and clearly fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NACADEMIC. Not sufficient depth-of-coverage for WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Α run-of-the-mill academic (so far) as shown above by user TheTechnician27. ——Chalk19 (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON. I think "run-of-the-mill" is far too harsh: she's on track to be a strong performer, but she's not quite there yet. More to the point, we don't have much to say about her yet beyond some promotional links in the media section. It's not the citation numbers; those vary by area within computer science and in some areas those would be good numbers for full professors, so it's difficult to judge by that. But all of her heavily-cited work is student work with multiple authors; she's only had four years after her Ph.D. and hasn't had time to build a track record independent of her advisor. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Rada Mihalcea is another BLP that needs to be looked at by experts, although in this case citations are high. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2019 (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.