Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzy Styles

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suzy Styles

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. An orphan article and coverage is mainly her being quoted in the media and not WP:SIGCOV about her. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Psychology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not convinced this fails WP:ACADEMIC aka WP:PROF; criterion 1 asks if the academic's work is "highly cited", which a Google Scholar search suggests it is. De-orphaned article but yes, it is in poor shape and needs attention. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
?? Those are definitely not high citations, especially for psych. She has an h-index of 8 and 240 citations on Scopus, that is nowhere close to what we expect for professor notability... JoelleJay (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here is a comparison of her Scopus citation profile to that of 60 of her coauthors with 10+ papers.

Total citations: average: 2768, median: 930, Styles: 237. Total papers: 76, 42, 27. h-index: 19, 14, 8. Top 5 citations: 1st: 386, 139, 53; 2nd: 234, 78, 37; 3rd: 158, 55, 35; 4th: 132, 47, 20; 5th: 116, 44, 18.

Doesn't meet C1.

JoelleJay (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's helpful if it is in fact a comparison against co-authors covering a similar sub-field of linguistic psychology. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Associate professors are sometimes notable, but the citation record doesn't look like a pass of WP:NPROF even in mathematics, a low citation field. (And certainly not for psychology.) No other notability apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the record, I don't think we should be using total citations as the metric; although I do appreciate that this citation comparison is subfield specific. Styles is ~~an assistant professor~~ recent associate professor without any mega-cited papers. Maybe she'll get there eventually, but she's not there yet.Mason (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. simply WP:TOOEARLY for this person as discussed above. --hroest 18:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not highly cited for psychology, a high-citation field. We have no other evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : This (https://www.ntu.edu.sg/news/detail/creation-of-50-new-named-faculty-chair-professorships-at-ntu ) suggests she has a "named chair" according to NTU. But their use of named chair is .. and hers is not a Full Professor Chairs but an Early-Career and Mid-Career Faculty Chair. This might allow a pass of WP:Prof 5. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Named chairs at the associate level definitely do not count for #C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2023 (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.