Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazel Assender

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Goldsztajn (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Assender

[edit]

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

Hazel Assender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject has no proven notability outside of bios JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I feel like she does meet WP:GNG. I won't say that this article is firmly in notable territory, but I wouldn't say this fails GNG either. Madeline1805 (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:Prof. Is the nominator aware of this SNG? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1. I think someone at this level in the US would very likely be an ASME Fellow and also pass #C3 but I don't see anything like that for her. On the other hand, full professor in England and in particular at Oxford is somewhat stricter than at US universities, maybe not enough for #C5 but a step towards it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My first thought was that weak keep was the right choice, but her publication record is reasonable, and, perhaps more important, her publications are well cited, with many cited more than 50 times, several more than 100, and at least two more than 300. Athel cb (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not only well-cited, but a full professorship in Oxford definitely meets #C5 (older UK universities have few explicitly-named professorships, and we never call ourselves distinguished, it just feels wrong...). Elemimele (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell she's actually an Associate Professor holding the title of Full Professor under the Recognition of Distinction exercise. But I see she was also joint Head of Department [1] so this is at least a Weak Keep and possibly better. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As others say above, an h-factor of 30 is not high. This is definitely the case in Material Science where I look for > 45. As mentioned above Full Professor at Oxford is no longer notable by itself, it used to be; they were good with fund raising, but that is off topic. At Oxford it is the same as a US Full Professor and definitely does not meet #C5. If she had a senior named chair such as the Wolfson Chair that would pass #C5. I also disagree with the statement about ASME Fellow. (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Meets the notability requirements for academia. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
? What does this vote mean? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep as noted above via WP:NPROF #1. I counted seven publications with 100+ citations (she is first author on three of these), 21 cited at least 50 times, and an h-index of 33 using Google Scholar. Enough of her more recent publications have her name in the last position and/or as corresponding author which would be expected for a full professor. Nnev66 (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hazel_Assender&oldid=1290666079"