Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Jeglic

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. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Jeglic

[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)

Reviewed for NPP. Entirely cited to passing mentions and things written by the topic of the article. She is the co-author of two books which may or may not be notable, but I don't think that's a large enough body of work to pass WP:NAUTHOR. NACADEMIC is hard for me to understand all the subtleties of, as I don't know what a good or bad h-index is in psychology, so she might pass there but I am not sure. If she does pass NACADEMIC it needs to be far less promotional. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Women. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep, not my area. Her GS profile is [1]. This states an h-index of 52 which is, I believe, considered good in most fields. There is a healthy citation profile with three papers with >200 citations, and a further fifteen with >100 citations, none of which appear heavily co-authored. She's top of the GS topic "Sexual Violence Prevention", for whatever that's worth (it doesn't seem a commonly used tag.) The co-edited books with Springer tend to support that she is considered an expert in those areas. Agree the article needs considerable work cutting out promotion. For what it's worth the creator is enrolled in an educational programme, so it appears to be a good-faith first attempt from someone unconnected with the subject. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict How many authors count as "heavily co-authored"? All of the papers she has written appear to be coauthored. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's usually used to talk about massively co-authored papers eg in physics where everyone who ever touched the apparatus is listed (hundreds, sometimes thousands). Most modern research papers across many subjects have in the region of 5–8 authors, but this is highly subject dependent. ETA The last time I recall it being used outside the physics field was in reference to [2] which has 33 authors; in such cases it would generally only be counted if the subject were one of the first few authors, or the final one, or was indicated as the corresponding author. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well I wish what is a sign of a pass for NACADEMIC was clearer to people who aren’t in that field, then PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Espresso Addict. The GS citation is enough to meet WP:PROF#4.Shoerack (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2024 (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.