Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justyna Zander

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justyna Zander[edit]

[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)

Autobiography created by Justynazander early this year. I'm not convinced that this passes WP:BASIC. Appearing in a Business Insider article along with 38 other people is not a signal of notability or SIGCOV to me, this source also does not seem to talk about this person beyond a trivial mention. This polish article looks like a puff piece.

Relevant discussions:

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_198#Justyna_Zander
User_talk:Justynazander#AfC_notification:_Draft:Justyna_Zander_has_a_new_comment SparklyNights 19:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Computing, Germany, and Poland. SparklyNights 19:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She seems to have 1961 citations in Gscholar, seems high, I'll look further, likely will pass notability for academics/scientists. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to have authored two books with Rutledge, but they don't appear to be widely reviewed (could barely find anything other than sales sites). She's been a CEO and has a few patents, but I don't see anything we'd use for notability. If someone can comment on the citation factor, might help, but otherwise it's a NO from me. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The COI and the copyvio of the photo, are red flags. We see this all too often, someone picks a photo, uploads it and edits their own article... Usually indications this is non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the three best sources shared in the AfC linked above are also a no-go. Trivial mentions or passing coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think this is quite as open & shut as it appears; there are quite a few citations in GS [1], top 305,243,181,120,107 with one further over 100, which should be considered under WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this is intended as promotional for her business. She claims her main area of research to be artificial intelligence, which is currently a very high-citation field, so the counts we see on Google Scholar do not stand out to me (would be typical for an assistant professor at a research university). So I would prefer to rely on WP:GNG rather than treating this as a WP:PROF#C1 case. But the sources we have are very spammy, so that case also looks marginal at best. And for a borderline case like this, I think the autobio problems are severe enough to settle the decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems promotional, fails WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. probably WP:TOOEARLY, she fails WP:NPROF, she is a postdoc and her GS citation fails the "average professor test". In AI/Machine Learning citation counts are way higher than any other field and so while impressive her citations do not stand out among her peers. @Espresso Addict: I would probably agree with you in almost any other scientific field, but in AI/ML her citation count is probably similar to other postdocs. --hroest 17:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please delete this article. I already removed it due to COI a few months ago and someone reinstated it. -JZ. Justynazander (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, seems true, it was recreated by a now-banned account. Weird, but anyway, I already vote above to delete this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As mentioned, criteria in WP:NPROF are not clearly met, and independent sourcing in general is lacking. All I could find, in addition to the current sources, are these two brief German-language news articles from 2009 (about her experience at Singularity University), which are now in the article. Bridget (talk) 01:35, 5 November 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.