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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celia Reina[edit]

Celia Reina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Assistant professor. Awards seem mostly early career, and citations don't seem to be sufficient to meet WP:NPROF. WP:TOOSOON? Also not convinced there is enough material to pass WP:GNG. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment are those awards important enough to bring about notability? The G-scholar citation rating does not match requirement for NPROF. Vikram Vincent 10:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at "Major Honors and Awards" from https://creina4.wixsite.com/celiareinaresearch/cv : 5 look like very early career awards, 2 are postdoc fellowships, and one is a named Assistant Professor chair (but not a full professor). It's only the latter I'm unsure about - the others don't really contribute notability, but show potential of WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pasting here for wider consideration:

• California Institute of Technology - Rolf D. Buhler Memorial Award, for "exemplary academic performance,"2007
• California Institute of Technology - Charles D. Babcock Award, "for achievements in teaching that have made a significant contribution to the Aeronautics program," 2008
• University of Bonn - HCM Postdoctoral Fellowship, 2010
• ALawrence Livermore National Laboratory - Lawrence Postdoctoral Fellowship, 2010 ::*California Institute of Technology - William F. Ballhaus Prize, "for an outstanding doctoral dissertation in Aeronautics," 2011
• University of Pennsylvania - William K. Gemmill Term Assistant Professor (endowed-chair), 2014
• ASME - Eshelby Mechanics Award for Young Faculty,2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentvikram (talk • contribs)

• Delete. It's a solid start, but assistant professors rarely meet WP:NPROF C1, and it certainly looks WP:TOOSOON in this case. I don't see any other evidence of notability. Comment that "term" as part of a named position at the assistant professor level often indicates a postdoc; that doesn't appear to be the case here, as Penn appears to put "term" as part of the name of also their senior named chairs. But in any case, named positions below full professor are explicitly excluded (cannot "be applied reliably") from WP:NPROF C5. And the early career and student awards do not contribute to notability, as Kj cheetham has already pointed out. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. fails WP:NPROF and is clearly TOOSOON. awards for young faculty and training awards do not confer notability, her GS has less than 300 citations which is low even for a low-ish citation field like hers (engineering/physics) and the article is clearly promotional: "She even landed a second Postdoc position" -- doing a second postdoc is not necessarily a mark of achievement. --hroest 14:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Save. I created the article because women need more representation in the field of science and engineering on Wikipedia, and her accomplishments seem notable for a woman. Shari Garland (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Shari Garland this is a very worthwhile goal that I full support, however the appropriate way to go about this is to create articles about women who are actually notable and not keep articles about non-notable subjects just because they happen to be women. --hroest 21:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• no, this is not a worthwhi.e goal. It is a violation of the purposes of Wikipedia and disruptive. Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs. It does not exist to create coverage of people, but to follow coverage that exists. This person clearly and completely fails academic notability guidelines and creating an article on her was disruptive to the purposes of Wikipedia. We need to stop encouraging people who go around creating articles on non-notable people and to start actually standing up for people following the inclusion criteira, the no original research, and other guidelines as written.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Johnpacklambert you seem to have a very confrontational style and I disagree with you: having better representation of women and minorities is a worthwhile goal, however achieving that goal by lowering standards is not a worthwhile means to achieve that goal. Calling this disruptive and a violation of Wikipedias purpose is not helpful. Instead we should be writing more articles about women and minorities who are actually notable. Creating an article about her was *not* with the intent to disrupt but an honest effort to better represent women in Wikipedia, even though it may have been misguided. Nobody is encouraging people to go around and create articles for non-notable people, no one here at least. Finally the WP:NPROF are guidelines and can be WP:IGNOREd.--hroest 13:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:TOOSOON, does not pass WP:PROF. There are large numbers of women in academia whose accomplishments are notable, full stop, rather than merely seeming notable "for a woman", and who are not yet represented by articles here (for instance, hundreds of them, most or all passing WP:PROF, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Fellowships). Fixing the gender gap does not require lowering our standards and stooping to tokenism. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article is TOOSOON. I looked at the Scopus citation metrics of Dr. Reina and all 15 of her coauthors*, plus all 99 of her two most frequent collaborators' coauthors* (*with ≥5 papers).

Total citations: average: 2469, median: 625, Reina: 196.

Total papers: avg: 72, med: 42, R: 20.

h-index: avg: 18, med: 13, R: 8.

Top 5 highest citations: 1st: avg: 302, med: 82, R: 44. 2nd: avg: 230, med: 56, R: 38. 3rd: avg: 128, med: 45, R: 18. 4th: avg: 98, med: 34, R: 14. 5th: avg: 82, med: 31, R: 11.

Shari Garland, please also see my user page for a list of STEM women who are more likely to pass NPROF -- all of them were discovered while looking through coauthors of other AfD subjects. Among Reina's extended coauthors are Irene Beyerlein (citations: 16478; h-index: 70; 5 highest citations: 383, 358, 319, 277, 275), Jane P Chang (c: 5263; h: 42; top: 339, 227, 211, 132, 130), and Sarah H Tolbert (c: 18246; h: 59; top: 2211, 1840, 808, 642, 609), who all seem to be exceptional in MSE but do not have wikipedia articles. JoelleJay (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this junk article. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to right wrongs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnpacklambert, this is not a "junk" article, it is an earnest effort by a newer editor who has been doing excellent work in the five months they have been here. It is not necessary nor is it kind to describe the article in condescending terms. The creation of this article was not a disruptive act. Deletion discussions are supposed focus on guidelines and policy. Netherzone (talk) 21:52, 5 April 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.