Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myriam Heiman

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. — The Earwig ^talk 07:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Myriam Heiman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article in current form does not clearly meet/surpass standards of WP:GNG due to few significant and independent sources. Also, subject of article has requested that biography be removed (this is not the main reason, per WP:NOTCSD, but would like extra admin consideration). Aeffenberger (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There is a problem here because the subject appears to meet WP:Prof#C1 on the basis of GS citations. No verifiable evidence is presented that the subject wants deletion. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment. I'm not seeing how she meets WP:Prof#C1, since it doesn't seem there are any independent citations (although I just brought up a potential independent RS in the Talk section). The "Latham Family Career Development Associate Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences" also does not count toward WP:Prof#C5 as it's for junior faculty. I'm partial to this being WP:TOOSOON. JoelleJay (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • C1 is about citations to her work, not about references about the subject in the article. Google Scholar lists papers with citation counts 364, 913, 744, 569, 237, 272, etc., well above our usual thresholds for #C1. That is, there are thousands (364+913+744+569+237+272+...) of publications that are at least in part about her work, most of them independent and reliably published, and some of them (we expect) likely in-depth rather than just passing citations. I agree that #C5 is not met, but we only need one. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're right, I misread the criterion. But since this field has extremely high citation and publication counts, I got curious about how well our apparent citation count criteria compare to the standards in this subtopic. A Scopus overview for Dr. Heiman indicates the total number of documents citing her is 2,556; a document count of 32; an h-index of 17; and a citation-high of 677. I then looked through all of Dr. Heiman's coauthors from 4 papers (her top 2, and then 2 randomly-selected low-citation ones (1, 2, 3, (4)) and have listed their current professional position, Ph.D grad year, number of citing documents, publication count, h-index, and highest citation. I have bolded those with better metrics, and italicized the ones with similar credentials to hers. WP article is linked when existing.

TLDR: among her and 36 of her coauthors (all the authors, including lab techs and support staff, but excluding 4 med students who only published one paper), her total citation count, publication count, and h-index were all exactly the median (2556, 32, 17, respectively), and the median highest-citation paper was 673 (compared to her 677). The averages were, respectively, 7945, 112, 32, and 1434 (around 2x or higher than her values). Notably, there are several non-professors/non-project leaders, including several with only a (recent) master's or less, who have more total citations and higher- or comparably-cited papers. Around 1/2 of her coauthors have higher or comparable h-indices. There are also multiple (assistant, associate, and tenured) professors with better metrics across the board who do not have articles (not that this is necessarily a good reason for someone not to have an article).

For further reference, here is the full list of publications with ≥1 citations, with journal, year, citation #, author position, and field-weighted citation impact:

JoelleJay (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! What a lot or work you have done! She seems to be early career in a very high cited field so WP:Prof#C1 may be marginal. As for the other people WP:Other stuff. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment It would help to know why the subject wishes the article deleted. (I'm presuming that the request is or can be confirmed as legitimate.) Is there a personal safety risk of some sort? The article doesn't seem too personal or too promotionally-toned; it's the same kind of stuff one might find on a faculty website. Is it outdated or otherwise erroneous? XOR'easter (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Jumping in because I am a graduate student in Dr. Heiman's lab who contributed to the making of her Wikipedia page. She directly requested through me to have this page taken down for personal safety reasons. I can provide verification of my membership in her lab if requested. If absolutely necessary, I can ask for Dr. Heiman's permission to provide verification of her request, but I will not post our direct correspondence here due to its private nature. PgeMIT (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, anybody can claim to be anybody. I could claim to be Donald Trump, although my edit history might cast doubt on that. Wikipedia has formal processes for verifying requests for deletion, which I am sure another editor will guide you to. If not verified, your request for deletion will look like another attack on a female academic. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I am happy to go through the proper channels for requests for deletion, if someone would be able to guide me to it. As I have said, I am also willing to provide verification of my identity, but I do not know the best way to do so or if it is necessary in this case, because I am new to Wikipedia. My goal is to address the concerns that people have brought up in a transparent manner. My only request is that you refrain from accusing me of 1) misrepresenting my identity, and 2) attacking female academics when you have no evidence supporting either accusation. PgeMIT (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It will need to be shown that the request to delete comes from the subject. Your identity is not needed. As for the process of verification you could look at WP:OTRS, but I cannot help more than that as I have never used the process myself. You might like to consult one of the administrators who frequent these pages or ask at the WP:Tea House. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

In ticket:2021011810009818 PgeMIT confirms their identity. We cannot confirm Dr. Heiman's position, but I would assume that Pge's statement is accurate in terms of her wish that it is deleted. Killiondude (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - we almost always delete articles where the subject is a BLP of arguable notabilkity, and the subject wants it deleted for good reasons. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Normally I'd probably have gone for weak keep with the analysis above about citation counts, but going for weak delete due to the request for deletion by the subject, which I'm taking as legitimate as per WP:GOODFAITH. On a side note, there is potential for WP:COI as well, based on comments by PgeMIT. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The argument for wiki-notability would be by way of WP:PROF#C1, and it doesn't seem to be an outstandingly good case (i.e., standing out in an exceptional way relative to the field). Overall, there just doesn't appear to be a reason to think that this biography is so necessary to understanding the area where Dr. Heiman works that a public benefit exists which outweighs the deletion request. XOR'easter (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on the basis that the claim that the subject wants deletion is accurate. Notability is borderline here. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete based on the deletion request and the below-average metrics. Among her co-authors who hold professorships, the median total citing docs is 5834 (avg 12310; hers is 2556), median publication number is 84 (avg 195, hers is 32), median h-index is 31 (avg 49.7, hers is 17), and median highest-cited paper citation count is 1053 (avg 1325, hers is 677). Her research is important and will likely gain more traction once she's later in her career, but as it stands now the bio is TOOSOON. JoelleJay (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I think the citation counts are enough for WP:PROF#C1, but there's really not much else, and that makes the case borderline enough that the subject's wishes should prevail. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In view of some of the material that has entered this AfD I am not surprised that the subject wants her BLP deleted. If it had not been for the subject's wish I would have voted Weak Keep. I seem to remember that deep in the thicket of suggestions that Wikipedia gives to its editors for better editing there is the admonition that students should not write about their teachers. If that advice had been heeded, not to mention WP:COI, the sorry saga of this AfD could have been avoided. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:15, 20 January 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.