Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tricia Striano

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 Keep. Though clearly the consensus is that Infancy research should be deleted, but as this article was never part of the AfD doing so would be out of process. I have added a Prod to it with a link to this AfD discussion. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tricia Striano

Autobiography of non-notable academic. While I'm not officially including it in this nomination, please also evaluate Infancy research by the same author. Author's account has been blocked for having a promotional username. --Finngall ^talk 17:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See multiple references at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22Tricia+Striano%22&ie=UTF-8 --Eastmain (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I admit Ms. Striano references in the news, and they are all in German, as shown here [1] are a bit thin, but they are all from verifiable – reliable –creditable 3rd party sources. In addition, Ms. Striano is cited in a number scholarly works as noted here [2]. Third, she has published as shown here [3]. Finally, the article is well written – sourced and wikified. Put all together, I can see no reason to express a delete opinion. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note – regarding Infancy research, I could not find any news articles on the Lab/Company. Figured any scholarly works would be published under Sr. Striano name and not the research facilities. So a moot point. My thoughts would be to ~~merge/redirect~~ Infancy research to Dr. Striano page until independent – verifiable – third party sources can be found dealing with the research facility as a separate entity rather than an extension of Dr. Striano. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Struck merge/redirect, with regrads to Infancy research, and agree with DGG point abot redirect. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shoessss. John254 19:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
neutral~~weak keep~~ very early in her career according to the calendar, but a very prolific researcher. GS lists citations as 98, 64, 41, 46, 40, 32, 34, 30... GS h-index=14 (~~can't get throught to ISI just now~~ISI returns much more modest numbers, highest citation count =39, h-index == 11). I can't judge whether German articles have her as a subject or merely cite as a source. On balance I'm ~~in favour of~~neutral on retention of the Biography but think Infancy research ought to be ~~merged~~deleted. I'm not really in favour of redirection, since a general article on the topic of research on infancy ought to be there rather than an article on a single PI's lab or subdepartmental unit. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The German articles have her as a subject, because of the AvH award she won which ic pretty prestigious. --Crusio (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though not yet notable by professional academic standards merely an editor of 1 collected volume, editor of a special issue of a journal, co-author of about 60 papers, almost none of them cited substantially-- 21 of them have never been cited at all. This is a prolific but not distinguished record. However, the attention from the popular press is sufficient. If they publicize an academic figure, it counts for notability just as for anything else they publicize. DGG (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Infancy Research" --that's just a single lab within a single department of a ordinary-level university. It is extremely hard to actually establish anything resembling notability for such laboratories, unless they are very famous. Essentially a PR attempt to get another article on her, and make it look respectable by giving it a title that appears to be generic. The redirect should not be created, because people looking for "infancy research" should not necessarily be directed to this particular laboratory. DGG (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete infancy research per DGG — we don't normally keep articles on sub-school-level academic units without some clear evidence of notability in the form of third-party sources, and the ones listed in the article are not convincing to me (many are press releases or otherwise affiliated with the university, and I have no way of evaluating how nontrivial the coverage in the others is). No opinion on Striano herself. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Judging from the titles, the German references in the IR article all (or mostly) concern the Leipzig lab as far as I can see, although the article is about the Hunter College lab. --Crusio (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Infancy research per DGG, neutral on Striano. Depends on how much weight one gives to the German articles. Without those she would not meet WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2008 (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.