Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda van Roosmalen

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linda van Roosmalen

No evidence (in the form of highly cited papers, major awards, popular press, etc) of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Has published papers, how can you know they are not "highly cited"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All academics publish, so the fact that she has published papers alone does not make her notable (my grad student has published papers, too...) To know whether a paper is cited or not, you can use Google Scholar, Scopus, or Web of Science. Knowing David, he has checked this and I see no reason to doubt his statement that her papers are not highly cited. She's still young, may become notable later, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Crusio (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot what page it was, but there is a specific page that says you should always double check before voting and do your own research to avoid any sheeping. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish: Google Scholar indicates that her highest cited paper got 11 cites. Web of Science (cannot give a direct link as it is a subscription service) lists 12 articles that together have been cited 26 times, highest score 7. David, therefore, is correct. --Crusio (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - assistant professor, has published papers - but no secondary sources, no evidence of meeting the standard of WP:PROF. JohnCD (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if we were to regard her CV as if it were a 3rd party source she does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (academics). --Boston (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Crusio and Eppstein: not notable as WP:PROF. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable per WP:PROF. Search as "van Roosmalen, L", in addition to "Linda van Roosmalen". Check Google with 320 additional hits and Google Scholar with 80 more hits. Esasus (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your GScholar search does not really give more hits than already found and the most cited article still has only 12 cites. I have no time at the moment to see whether the other Ghits perhaps contain sources to show notability according to WP:BIO, but this certainly does not show notability according to WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - some of these are different van Roosmalens - there is an M.L. van R and a Lieke van R, as well as Linda van R. JohnCD (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As a rule assistant professors are not yet at the stage of notability. Some are, but it has to be strongly shown by the published work. There can be problems of judging the published work of people in applied subjects, because the important work can be elsewhere than in peer reviewed journals,and most of her work does seem to be published in conferences,m which is not unusual in engineering. . And there can be problems in small specialties like hers, because its harder to tell what the standards are. Looking in Scopus, I see 12 papers, none of them cited more than 9 times. they are in good journals, thugh, and most of the similar papers she cites have similarly low citation frequency. She is additionally that member of several formal standards committees, which is normally a recognition of at least some stature of an authority. But I';m going to tentatively make a value judgement here: her work is concerned with the design and testing of specific wheelchair components, not the design of wheel chair and other assistive systems in any broader sense. Her web page, too, fills in the content with student projects. On balance, I do not think she is notable yet. Perhaps she will be, but not now. DGG (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF. There is no evidence that she has published highly cited papers. She also hasn't receive any major awards. I don't think this bio meets WP standard. AdjustShift (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. In addition to the points already made above, news coverage of the subject is pretty much nonexistent. Has potential for WP:BIO-notability in the future, as the topics of research are the type that tend to attract media interest, but not yet there.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not important enough to pass WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. See comments above. Demophon (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2009 (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.