Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Lubiw
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Anna Lubiw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Don't believe the kind of award is enough to support notability. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep -- full professor at a well-known school for computing. h-index of 27 and over 2,000 citations is high enough in general, but particularly for a researcher who did most of her work in the 80s when citations are still being uncovered. (if 27 isn't high enough then I'd like to see an AfD for her husband Jeffrey Shallit as well who is at the same rank and has 29). The ACM award is not a superstar award but it is in recognition of significant notability in the field, which fits well with our guidelines for a Keep. Superstar status is not necessary. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Keep as per MSC. An incomprehensible nomination from a user whose main interest seems to be bicycling. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC).
- Comment. I think I'm going to have to recuse myself on this one as I know Anna too well professionally to have an unbiased opinion — her work and mine are in very similar areas. But I just added some more detail and sources to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). H-index of 28, it seems, and 2,105 cites; trending up since Xxanthippe's check.--Eric Yurken (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- actually, it was Cuthbert's count. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC).
- Keep. Citations are conclusive. Agricola44 (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC).
- Keep There are articles on unnotable people in Wikipedia, but Lubiw is notable with all the citations she has. She has made an impact and we should have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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.