Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Mandelbaum

:{{la|Rachel Mandelbaum}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rachel_Mandelbaum Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Rachel Mandelbaum}})

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:PROF The Sloan Fellowship is to "provide support and recognition to early-career scientists and scholars" so is not sufficient for notability. Sources are press releases from the University where she is an Associate Professor. Her high citation works are the Sloan Digital Sky Surveys where there are scores of co-authors. Jbh^Talk 15:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The nominator is correct to imply that it is difficult to ascertain the degree of independent achievement with papers with such vast numbers of co-authors. However, Looking at the well-cited papers with fewer co-authors, I find provisionally that WP:Prof#C1 is passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC).

::Possibly you are seeing something I am not. I have found few papers with fewer than ~10 co-authors. Possibly this is normal in her field but I did not see many where she was the principle author either. She is an early-in-career Associate Professor. It is highly unlikely, mired in a pack of co-authors and this early in her career, with few papers which she is principle author of, that her work has yet "made a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" per PROF#C1. In such a case I would expect to see some coverage in RS or major awards within the discipline rather than "up-and-comer" awards if she passed PROF#C1. Jbh^Talk 01:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. She is in that part of an academic career that is frustrating for Wikipedia editors. The awards are all early career awards. There is little documentation of the impact of an academic career prior to receiving major awards or getting an obituary in Physics Today. I've added her CV and pubs to the article (2 documents for some reason). She divides her publications into regular work and large group collaborations. As for papers with less than 10 authors, she published 12 of them in 2015 and 6 in 2014 if I've counted authors right. As for highly cited articles:

:* 2013 first author of 8, cited by 106, Cosmological parameter constraints from galaxy–galaxy lensing and galaxy clustering with the SDSS DR7

:* 2010 second author of 7, cited by 224, Confirmation of general relativity on large scales from weak lensing and galaxy velocities

:* 2008 first author of 3, cited by 172, A halo mass—concentration relation from weak lensing

:* 2006 first author of 6, cited by 177, Density profiles of galaxy groups and clusters from SDSS galaxy–galaxy weak lensing

: StarryGrandma (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't think the Falco-DeBenedetti Career Development Professorship is good enough for WP:PROF#C5 (its name makes it sound like a mid-career thing rather than a higher-level distinguished professorship) but looking at Google scholar and discounting the SDSS hits still gives a convincing pass of WP:PROF#C1. And I think coverage of a project she leads in a Nature news piece [http://www.nature.com/news/astronomers-use-fake-data-to-tackle-dark-energy-1.14020] is another indication of significance. (See also [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160125114233.htm] [http://www.universetoday.com/60030/this-is-getting-boring-general-relativity-passes-yet-another-big-test/] [http://www.astronomy.com/news-observing/news/2010/03/scientists%20say%20einsteins%20theory%20applies%20beyond%20the%20solar%20system] for less-high-profile media coverage of her research.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Agreed that she passes Prof C1. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.