Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michal Rosen-Zvi

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. Tone 12:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Rosen-Zvi (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)

Of the sources cited in this article, the only lengthy treatments of Rosen-Zvi are the page for one of her visiting faculty positions and the click-bait CTech article on her use of Wikipedia (whose title is not reflected in her quoted statements). The rest are: a video of a lecture by her; a news article in which she is briefly quoted as an expert; and a summary of a colloquium presentation that I added for details on her education and to support a visiting faculty position that was already in the article. Other than her LinkedIn, which is security protected and therefore cannot be added as an external link, I cannot find any other coverage of her. Unless someone is able to find additional coverage in Hebrew, or demonstrate a high impact for her publications, I believe she meets neither the general notability guideline nor the special standard for academics. This is WP:TOOSOON. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - She is the Director of Healthcare Research at IBM Haifa, which I believe is the rough equivalent of a full professor. Back in 2014 (before she was promoted) she supervised 30 IBM researchers according to this video, about 3 minutes in. IBM is investing billions of dollars into healthcare AI and machine learning. As director, with 40 plus publications, she's clearly not a paper pusher but a hands on researcher. There's enough information from universities and the equivalent that we know this isn't made up and that she's doing important work. It would be lovely to have more information, but this is what we have and I think it's enough to establish notability. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Heavy citations on Google Scholar (even in a high-citation field) give her a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doesn't pass GNG in my view.--Darwinek (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject passes WP:GNG and I found out some sources about her in Hebrew language. Well she is a visiting university professor and it itself makes her much more notable enough. I agree the article is stub and lacks in depth of information. Abishe (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject meets WP:NPROF C1 with several papers having several hundred citations (even in the higher citation field), including one with 1700+ citations. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep At least 6 papers with more than 100citations each. Easily notable. scope_creep^Talk 18:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clear pass of WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I disagree that directing a department at IBM Research is equivalent to a full professorship, or that being a visiting professor makes one notable, and we can't use IBM's extensive research as grounds for notability by association. (I also can't hear the video to get the date of her promotion or the number of people she supervises from it, but if it's a reliable source for filling in such career details, please somebody cite it.) But it seems her citation index may be enough to meet the criteria for academics. (I'm intentionally avoiding Wikipedia shorthand for the benefit of any non-editors who may read this.) However, like all the special notability criteria, those are in part based on the presumption that sources will exist. We do a disservice to the reader with unverifiable articles as well as with articles with very little information, and potentially do a disservice to a living person with a biography that represents them poorly, including one lacking much information. @Abishe: I can't read Hebrew but at least two of what that Google search showed me seemed to be, reasonably enough, equivalents in Hebrew to what we are already citing in English. Is there anything in Hebrew that gives new, citable information? It's perfectly ok to have citations in a foreign language. @David Eppstein, Russ Woodroofe, and Scope creep: Do any of those citations lead to a third-party source reporting on her research that can be added? I wondered what role she played in the study of AI breast cancer detection, but only saw reports of her presenting it as an example of the potential usefulness of machine learning; if she's cited somewhere as having played a leading role in that or other important research, that would flesh out our account of her work, which right now uncomfortably stresses her use of Wikipedia to build a database, simply because that's the topic of the single extended article about her that we've got so far. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yngvadottir, the standards for academic notability, in general, differ from most other specialized notability standards, and do not in general operate on the principle that people who pass those standards will also pass our general notability guidelines. This article, in particular, is not lacking in verifiable information regarding Rosen-Zvi's life and career, although it is deficient in describing her research accomplishments. For someone whose career details are sketchy or hard to find, that could become an issue in a deletion discussion, but not this deletion discussion. So the question is not: can we verify what we've written about her, it's: has she made enough of an intellectual impact to meet our notability standards for researchers? I don't understand why you pick out her work on breast cancer as something to highlight, though. Her heaviest citations are for author-topic models for document classification, extending latent Dirichlet allocation. This work is briefly covered in our article topic model. It's also described for an entire subsection of e.g. this survey article (which may or may not count as a reliable source, I'm not sure). The difficulty here is not having too few sources, but too many: Google scholar claims there are some 3000 published works that in some way cite Rosen-Zvi's work on this topic. No doubt many of them are just brief mentions without enough detail to use as a source, but finding the ones that provide more detail requires both significant effort and some level of subject expertise. That's why articles such as this tend to focus on career milestones instead of intellectual accomplishments: because it's much easier. But it doesn't mean the intellectual accomplishments aren't there, or are somehow unverifiable. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that there's enough for an article. I also agree that it would be worthwhile to expand with more on her research. Her highly-cited articles are on the author-topic model. I didn't find a great overview quickly, but the overview in [1] appears to be independent and reliable. What do y'all think? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1. XOR'easter (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2020 (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.