Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa Maryańska

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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Maryańska

[edit]
Teresa Maryańska (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)

This author may satisfy criterion 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) if Google Scholar is used for citation information (WoS gives an h-index of 4 NOTE:User:Msrasnw gets 12 - see discussion). No other criterion seems applicable. However, the article seems doomed to remain a pseudo-biography because so little biographical information is available. In the spirit of the discussion in pseudo-biographies, it could be said that Maryańska is mainly known for one event, collectively the three Polish-Mongolian expeditions to the Gobi Desert and the dinosaur finds that came out of them. All the information on her is related to that. So perhaps there should be an article on the expeditions and her name should redirect to that. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Withdrawn by nominator" - I think the supporters, particularly Msrasnw in their most recent addition, have successfully demonstrated notability by providing sources for the contribution of Maryańska to this work. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Anthony J. Martin's (2006) Introduction to the Study of Dinosaurs Wiley-Blackwell - describes H Osmólska and T Maryańska as still being considered to be "Poland's leading experts on dinosaurs" (page 78). I will look for more. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

*Comment - in the spirit of the discussion in pseudo-biographies, it could be said that Maryańska is mainly known for one event, collectively the three Polish-Mongolian expeditions to the Gobi Desert and the dinosaur finds that came out of it. All the information on her is related to that. So perhaps there should be an article on the expeditions and her name should redirect to that. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC) *Delete An h-index of 4 is miles away from what we generally consider notable here. Most of her publications are in a rather obscure journal, so the low level of citations 'even for this relatively low citation field) is not too surprising. As the nom says, no evidence of meeting any other criteria under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. --Randykitty (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: When I look in Web of Science Knowledge I get a h-index of 12 which seems to me enough to allow a pass of WP:Prof. I think it is possible that the WoS H-index =4 quoted above may be substantially wrong and missleading! Could you check again. Halszka Osmólska has a H-index on WosK of 15 which would also seem enough to allow a pass. This article (Dodson, Peter. "Polish Women in the Gobi–In Loving Memory of Halszka Osmólska (1930-2008)." AMERICAN PALEONTOLOGIST 16.3 (2008): 30.) seems to indicate, like Martin (2006, above) that both Osmólska and Maryańska are both highly notable! (Msrasnw (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    • Thanks for the citation; I'll add it to the article. I have tried a few different searches: one one "Maryanska T*"; or "Maryanska" and then refining it using either "Paleontology" for category or "Poland" for Countries/Territories. In all cases I get 7 publications and an h-index of 4. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, your results (as posted at User:Msrasnw/TM) seem more in line with the Google Scholar search, so maybe there is something wrong with my interface. I'll modify my rationale. Note, however, that isn't really my reason for deletion. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply RockMagnetist and Randykitty were right and I was wrong about WoS. My WoS linked to Web of Knowledge via All databases and I was reporting that! The Wok H-index of 12 seems fine to me..... coupled with the descriptions of her in other soources seesm to indicate notability to me. Sorry about my error, lack of precision and rush to judegment. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak Keep now that GS index is established for a not particularly well cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: I think the GS h-index of around 14 and the Web of Knowledge H-index of 12 in this low cited field and the claim by Martin (2006) that she is still being considered to be "Poland's leading experts on dinosaurs" (page 78) and Dodson's (2008) discussion all indicate she is sufficiently notable for an article. I also think that our encylopedia's use of her as a reference in lots of articles [1] lends to support to keeping the article on her (but I recognise this is not one of our criteria). I think a further article on the Polish-mongolian palaeontological expeditions 1967-1971 might be nice too. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)) PS: The Smithsonian has a brief note on her here [2] where it has the following description: "A prominent Polish paleontologist, Maryanska was involved in the important Polish-Mongolian Palaeontological Expeditions of the 1960s and 1970s. From these explorations came a wealth of new data on dinosaurs, and Maryanska wrote several important papers on these specimens. These included ankylosaurs, pachycephalosaurs, ceratopsians, and theropods. She has named several species of dinosaurs, including Bagaceratops, Prenocephale, and Tarchia." This is a listing of Who's Who in Dinosaur Research. Also Polish Post has released a nice series of stamps to celebrate the Gobi trips and their finds. One of the stamps illustrates Saichania (Mongolian meaning "beautiful one") "described by doc. Teresa Maryańska from the Museum of Earth of PANing" [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msrasnw (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Keep I have struck my earlier !vote. This is a strange case. When I search in the Web of Science, I get 7 hits with an h-index of 4, like the nom. When I search using "all databases" in WoK, I still get 7 hits, but now the h-index is 5 (a result nobody else seems to get). Of course, in principle an h-index should be independent of which database one searches. To get the "real" h, it would be necessary to look at all individual citations from whatever database you get them and then do the calculation based on that. In practice, we let the databases do this themselves. I'm not a fan of GS (I have a publication myself which I know has never been cited and it gets 30 hist on GS...), although it seems to be improving. Whatever is the case, it's a fact that all databases render potentially different results: GS and Scopus have wider coverage than WoS, potentially resulting in higher citation counts, but Scopus only goes back to 1996 and authors with publications before that date will be underestimated. It looks like we should only compare citation data if they have been derived from the same database. In the present case, I think the citation analysis is to uncertain to give us much guidance. However, the other sources that have been found (Smithsonian) and the fact that she has described several new species, tip the balance in favor of a "keep". --Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, this is a well-known and confounding problem. GS includes "citations" from non-peer-reviewed work, so its numbers are almost always significantly higher. WoS is the most complete in terms of journals, though it also has a few problems. CS people don't like that it does not index conference publications, which are important in their field, though not in most other fields. Moreover, what an individual searcher has access to depends upon what level of subscription his/her institution pays for. Agricola44 (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. I think we have to be a little careful of "grading on the curve" here because lots of paleontologists listed in WP do, in fact, have large numbers of citations, for example Neil Shubin's list is 351, 336, 163, 115, 114... and Jack Sepkoski's is 529, 456, 375, 296, 263... My check of WoS concurs with Randykitty: 7 papers having citations of 35, 15, 9, 9, 4, 0, 0 (h-index 4). I agree this seems strange, but the explanation seems to be that most of her papers were published in Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, which WoS' impact factor database shows is not even in the top third of paleontology-specific journals (and this doesn't even count the "general science" journals, like PNAS, Science, or Nature, where really significant findings are typically reported). In other words, most of her work was not published among what seem to be regarded as the better journals in her field. Agricola44 (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    • Keep Impact Factor (IF) of Acta Palaeontologica Polonica is invariably high; the latest data for 2011 JCR indicate the IF = 1.488 which gives the journal the 17th position out of 49 periodicals ranked in the Paleontology category worldwide [4]. Kmicic (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot !vote twice, so this second "keep" has been struck. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment As the creator, I do not intend to speak pro or con. If I recall correctly, I created this article because it was a redlink in a potential FA. I *am* somewhat concerned that indicies may be misleading, because her early work was done on the Soviet side of the Iron Curtain, but I honestly don't know how much of a problem that would have been in the 1970s-early 1980s; general-audience dinosaur books of that era were full of the news from Mongolia, so specialists should have been at least as well-informed. J. Spencer (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Given the above concerns about low citations, could you kindly furnish some supporting evidence for your claim? Thanks so much, Agricola44 (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I'm curious, too. I have heard many criticisms of the h-index, but this is the first time that I hear that it is not applicable to a certain nationality of researchers... --Randykitty (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm curious why you're so curious. H-index is irrelevant for non-English researchers, e.g. from Poland. You may read this article [5]. Prof. Maryańska is one of the most important Polish paleontologist. This is beyond doubt. I suppose that Anthony J. Martin from Department of Environmental Studies at Emory University is better authority in this question. Trying judging scientific achievements of prof. Maryańska by two Wikipedians, who based on irrelevant H-index, is OR. Kmicic (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but that is hogwash. I agree that the h-index is less pertinent in fields like, say, the humanities, but just sweeping it away as "not applicable for non-English researchers" is rubbish. I'm a non-English researcher working in a non-English speaking country and the h-index really plays a big role in my annual evaluations here. And for all you know, some of the Wikipedians here may be paleontologists that are even more famous than Dr. Maryańsk... --Randykitty (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hogwash is a situation, when Wikipedians try to judge someone scientific achievements using h-index instead of using citing sources, which said that prof. Maryańska is one of the most important Polish paleontologist. We are not talking about other paleontologists, so I don't know why you're talking about Wikipedians-paleontologists. Ok, h-index may play a role in annual evaluations, but it doesn't mean that h-index is relevant for non-English researchers. Kmicic (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can accept certain criticisms of the h-index, it certainly has its weaknesses. But it is as applicable (or non-applicable) to non-English researchers as to English researchers. --Randykitty (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I don't read Polish and it would be very helpful if you could furnish a translation of Kielan-Jaworowska's testimony. As far as I can tell, Maryanska's name is mentioned only once in that document in this sentence: "Wœród opracowañ dinozaurów szczególn1 wartoœæ maj1 prace Halszki Osmólskiej i Teresy Maryañskiej." As for the h-index, I'm not arguing so much on it, but rather on the total number of citations over her career, ~70, which is low. I agree with Randykitty: I don't think one can exempt a citation/h-index/publication-impact argument based on nationality. Agricola44 (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - so much emphasis on notability! If anyone could find a few biographical details such as birth date - or even where she has worked for most of her life - I would support keeping the article. Otherwise, another approach would be to create Paleontological expeditions to Mongolia and redirect there; the article "Asiatic dinosaur rush" could be the basis of an interesting WP article. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In English Wikipedia there are more than 40,000 articles about living people which don't contain date of birth. No birth date isn't argument for deleting article. Dr hab. Maryańska worked for many years in Muzeum Ziemi PAN. [6]. Kmicic (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Sorry for changing yet again, but based on the discussion above and on Agricola44's arguments I have struck my "keep" !vote and change to neutral... --Randykitty (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The disputants seem not to understand how h-index works. First of all, WoS index bases ONLY on publications on the JCR list, which comprises almost exclusively English journals, so the point about language bias is very relevant. Second of all, h-index is not a good measure of academic notability at all, simply because a person who writes one extremely important, breakthrough and famous book, quoted 400 times (h-index=1) is more notable than somebody with 20 papers, of which each is cited 20 times (h-index=20). Speaking of books, they do not count AT ALL in WoS h-index measure, as I hope you realize. I recommend checking Zygmunt Bauman h-index in WoS to see how useful this measure is as the main criterion of notability ;) (Side note: I am not an expert in this field and I have no idea about notability of this person, but I simply see the argumentation for deletion as ostensibly flawed; and also since there are reliable sources explicitly stating that the described person is an outstanding scholar in her field, I believe that this discussion is moot). Pundit|utter 10:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A further note worrying about the use of Web of Science in this case: I think web of science does not seem to be including some things which might be important in this case. For example using Google Scholar - Maryanska's third most cited thing (68 cites) is this one Maryanska, T, and H. Osmólska. "Protoceratopsidae (Dinosauria) of Asia." Palaeontologia Polonica 33 (1975): 133-181. This doesn't seem to be noticed by Web of Science. However it is included in Web of Knowledge. Web of Knowledge says it has been cited 58 times. The articles citing this include many that are included in Web of Science with high citation scores themselves. (I think JJ Sepkoski mentioned above also cites Maryanska!). I think it seems to me WoS not including Palaeontologia Polonica might be biasing our discussion. I think it is possible this kind of bias might be a systematic one in which none US/UK or western journals (and people having published in them) are not so well included by some commercial citation statistics producers. The Web of Knowledge seems to include more and its
WoK H-index is 12 includes the following: 67, 58, 58, 39 39, 32, 21, 19, 15, 15, 14, 13 ..... with a total of 400+ citations. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment Actually, WoS and the JCR do include a fair amount of non-English journals (and if I understand correctly, Palaeontologia Polonica is published in English); the Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, for example is included in the SCI (and with a very good impact factor at that). However, if a journal is not often cited, it won't get included in these indices. "Not too often cited" implies, of course, that these journals rarely if ever publish important breakthroughs and researchers, from whatever country, usually try to get their more important results into outlets that have higher visibility. Apart from that, I don't think that anybody here is arguing that we should decide notability solely on the h-index. A high h-index almost certainly indicates notability, but the opposite is not true. Looking at total citations (not an absolute criteria either), 400 citations is not really all that much either, even for a field like this. So I remain undecided and I propose that we stop discussing the merits/demerits of the h-index as this is not the place for that discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, concur: the "h-index people" are beating a strawman here. There are now several observations that her total number of citations over a very long (>30 year) career is not very high, even if there is some disagreement on the precise value of this number. Anyone familiar with the "gamesmanship" of research knows that papers are normally submitted to the most prestigious journal the submitter believes will have some probability of accepting a paper. This symbiotic relationship is why "big papers" are published in "big journals" (Science, Nature, et al) ... unless there are some other mitigating circumstances here, which nobody seems to be claiming yet. Maryanska evidently published most of her work in a 2nd-tier disciplinary journal (yes, Acta Pal. Pol. is indexed by WoS and, yes, its impact factor is in the middle third of disciplinary paleo journals). These observations, by themselves, are not a sufficient indicator of notability. Matters would change if indeed there are other notable experts that have called her work significant, or noted her contributions in some other way. Kmicic asserts above that such a testimonial exists, but the source is in the Polish language, which so far as I can tell, none of the panelists here speak. I have pointed out the 1 sentence in which her name appears and have asked for translation so that we can evaluate this source, but so far there has only been deafening silence. Agricola44 (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Reply to Agricola44: I think there might be something problematic here. I think, contrary to what is being claimed, she has produced a lot of important work that has been well cited. I also am not sure that we can assume that Maryańska was using the kind of gamesmanship when submitting papers to journals that is being suggested (and is unfortunately so common nowadays). I think it likely that Palaeontologia Polonica, Acta Geologica Polonica and Acta Pal. Pol. were the obvious places to submit her articles! These were the first tier journals for her to be publishing in. Whilst WoS does now include Acta Pal. Pol. and Acta Geologica Polonica ( but not Palaeont. Polonica), I think it started doing so after some her most well cited work work was published. WoS coverage of these is limited. (I think it only starts its coverage in 1997/2004). One of Maryańska more highly cited papers according to GS (74 citations including ones in such journals as Science and Nature) Gradzinski, R., Z. Kielan-Jaworowska, and T. Maryanska. "Upper Cretaceous Djadokhta, Barun Goyot and Nemegt formations of Mongolia, including remarks on previous subdivisions." Acta Geologica Polonica 27.3 (1977): 281-318 - is, for example, not in WoS. As for "other notable experts" that have noted her contributions I think we might note that other leading paleontologist eg JJ Seposki (who is mentioned above as a leading paleontologist) cite Maryanska in their work. Eg: RE Chapman, PM Galton, JJ Sepkoski Jr, WP Wall - "A morphometric study of the cranium of the pachycephalosaurid dinosaur Stegoceras." Journal of Paleontology (1981): 608-618. cite Maryanska, T. and H. Osmlska. 1974. Pachycephalosauria, a new suborder of ornithischian dinosaurs. Palaeont. Polonica 30:45-102. This also is not in WoS. I would view these as a sensible considerations on which base a judgment of academic notability but I guess these might be called "other mitigating circumstances" by others. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
PS: With regards to Nature - a quick search indicates Maryańska has been cited 14 times in Nature: Nature 378, 764-765; Nature 475, 465-470; Nature 378, 774-776; Nature 399, 350-354; Nature 279, 633-635; Nature 447, 844-847; Nature 283, 380-381; Nature 289, 97-98; Nature 465, 466-468; Nature 435, 84-87; Nature 405, 941-944; Nature 419, 291-293, Nature 416, 314-317; Nature 393, 782-783. I think most of these have not been noted in WoS.
PPS With regards to the journal Science her work has been cited 6 times: Science 4 November 1994: 779-782 - Science 4 November 1994: 782-784. - Science 27 March 1992: 1690-1693 - Science 1 September 2006: 1238. - Science 29 January 2010: 571-574. - Science 27 March 1992: 1693-1695. And I think most of these have not been noted in WoS. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Reply. I agree that matters of evaluation are dicey for scientists behind the Iron Curtain. I do not claim to know the situation in individual countries, for example to what degree there were state-enforced prohibitions on interacting/publishing with the outside world. I do know that there's no precedent for grading citations, as you imply above. It is still the case that a citation from Nature or Science is no better than one from a different journal and a citation from JJ Seposki is no better than one from someone else. Again, though we're collectively having some trouble in determining her exact citation record, it appears that it is not obviously and conspicuously above average, and, moreover, there aren't any other secondary sources that materially describe her work as being significant or notable. The bottom line here is that there are already enough "keep" !votes to ensure this article will stay, even if it is by no-consensus, so I will respectfully stick with agreeing to disagree on this case. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
But it is you I want to convince!!!! :) (Msrasnw (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I appreciate that:) Kmicic is probably right that most of us are not paleontologists...I'm definitely not...though I don't know whether s/he is either. This renders me unable to judge "subtle shades of gray", as I might be able to do in physics or mathematics BLPs, so it's 0 or 1 in this case. What I see very plainly is that it is easy to find obviously notable paleontologists on WP (I immediately found the examples of Seposki and Shubin, despite having never heard of these individuals) and their publication records are very typical of notable scientists in other fields and dramatically better than Maryanska's. Shubin and Sepkoski are/were rank-and-file academics, so I think it's questionable to what degree anti-paleo citation bias exists. Citation bias certainly is relevant in most of the humanities, but the sciences are a different matter, which is why I originally advised caution in "grading on the curve" for this case. Again, appreciate your input, but I'm sticking with my original position. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    • I'm curious why you didn't use dictionary or Google Translator. Obie autorki [Halszka Osmólska and Teresa Maryańska] wkrótce znalazły się w gronie wiodących w skali światowej specjalistów od tej grupy zwierząt. Both authors [Osmólska and Maryańska] soon after became a leading experts in the World scale in this group of animals [dinosaurs]. Sorry for my bad English. "Big papers" are often published in "small journals", especially if you know the situation in Poland before 1989. I think Zofia Kielan-Jaworska knew better who is expert than anonymous Wikipedians based on h-index. Kmicic (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've had spotty luck with translation tools and, since you quite obviously speak the language, it's clear that you can provide correct translation and context. What I was hoping for was some material description of why Maryanska's work is notable, what her important discoveries/analyses were, etc., but this appears to be more of a simple and brief collegial acknowledgement (again, this is common in academic culture). My guess is that all the evidence that is out there is now on the table, so it'll remain for the closing admin to render a verdict. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • keep - key scientist in the study of asian dinosaurs. biographical information unrelated to someone's study is a bonus but not key ingredient to the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per Agricola. There is a question of whether we consider paleontology to be a low-citation field, and a question of which metrics we use. Due to the trouble with WoS outlined (particularly regarding the journals it indexes), I took a look at Google Scholar, where the subject has an h-index of 15 or so. When compared against Polish paleontologist Zofia Kielan-Jaworowska, who has a Gscholar h-index of 31 or so, this is quite low - bear in mind that citations are roughly quadratic in the h-index. Similarly, there is the question of her positions obtained - she is listed as "Docent," which, I understand it, in Poland is a title used to signify an appointment at a rank below that of Professor, not dissimilar to the German system. Thus, the subject would appear to fail the "more notable than the average professor" test. RayTalk 16:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW. For whatever coverage biases WoS exhibits in this case, it concurs with GS in showing that Zofia Kielan-Jaworowska has an enormously higher citation record than Maryanska, reporting >500 citations vs. Maryanska's total of 72. This tends to add additional credence to the proposition that it is Maryanska's lack of notability rather than some ethnic/national/paleo bias that explains the situation. Agricola44 (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Comment. (ec with previous comment) I think the concept of "pseudo-biography" is one we should dump. WP:PSEUDO is part of an essay, in fact, not a consensus position. If a scientist is significant enough that people might want to know who they are and what they did, as this one certainly appears to be, then it's worth having an encyclopedia article to tell us who they are and what they did. I don't think it matters at all if there aren't enough RSs to enable us to fill in biographical details that are, anyway, secondary to the person's scientific contribution. --Stfg (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I invoked WP:PSEUDO because it came closest to expressing my thoughts on the subject. However, there are consensus policies among the reasons for deletion that may apply here: reason 7 (WP:V) because the sources provide very little information on the subject; and reason 9 (WP:BLP) because the subject is arguably notable for only one event. My thinking is, the weaker the arguments for notability, the more important these considerations become. I think this scientist should be covered in Wikipedia, just not in a separate article. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am in agreement with you on "pseudo-biographies". As I wrote recently on WP:BLPN (concerning a different case), "I, for one, strongly disagree with its position and pejorative language on biographies of people known more for what they have done than for the details of their personal life: I believe our coverage of academic researchers in general would be gutted if we took this seriously (because they are primarily and rightly known for their academic accomplishments, not for their birthdays and dating history). It is a bad essay to follow because it guides us in the direction of superficiality." —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - actually there may be a relevant notability guideline: WP:BIO1E (People notable for one event), if the "event" is the collection of Polish-Mongolian expeditions and the results that came out of them (I admit, many people might consider that a stretch). Does a separate article on Maryańska give undue weight to her role in these expeditions? RockMagnetist (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this may warrant a closer look. Zofia Kielan-Jaworowska evidently led these expeditions and it may be that there were lots of "staffers" that participated, who by themselves were not notable, but whose names nevertheless appeared on publications. The lack of WP:RS means that it may not be trivial to check. Agricola44 (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Assessment. That is a fairly extensive reprint of a chapter of one of Colbert's books giving a detailed history of the Gobi research. It discusses history/work of many notable paleos/geologists/explorers in some level of detail: Roy Andrews, Raphael Pumpelly, Vladimir Obruchev, Walter Granger, Henry Osborn, Ivan Yefremov, and of course Zofia Kielan-Jaworowska, e.g. "Polish involvement in Mongolia began in 1955 when Zofia...". There are no substantive details or mention of Maryanska or her specific work or findings. Her name only appears in this article as one entry in a long list of Polish paleos that were members of various expeditions – seemingly a textbook case of WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Maryanska may have been what we would refer to today as a staffer who participated in these expeditions, but did not play the role of a "principal investigator". Agricola44 (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: I'm astonished that the subject has even come up. Abyssal (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How can one event possibly apply to a series of discoveries and publications? If she had discovered one fossil once and published one paper on it, that might be an argument, but it seems altogether inapplicable here. As for her actual role in the work, we can only go by the publications, and assume the authorship is meaningful. In a joint project, the descriptions of the new species are not usually assigned to technicians. It has, btw, been established in other AfDs that anyone describing multiple species is notable--it may even have been so said for someone formally describing a single species, though I would regard that as stretching it. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be useful to note that Peter Dodson (1998 p. 9) claims that in 1974 Maryanska together with Osmolska were the first "women to describe new kinds of dinosaurs". (Dodson, Peter (1998) The Horned Dinosaurs: A Natural History, Princeton Univerity Press) (Msrasnw (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • "As for her actual role in the work, we can only go by the publications, and assume the authorship is meaningful" – I've been arguing this over at the current Proctor AfD, but it's not holding water there. :( Agricola44 (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • If my interpretation of an "event" seems strained, it is because the wording of the policy is slanted towards people in the news. I think the policy needs to be adapted to academics, and this is my first attempt to do so. The central statement on her achievement is "A member of the 1964, 1965, 1970, and 1971 Polish–Mongolian expeditions to the Gobi Desert, she has described many finds from these rocks, often with Halszka Osmólska." But no one has found any details of how she contributed to those expeditions, and the only sources for her contributions to studying the dinosaurs are the primary sources with her name on them. WP:BIO1E concludes with the statement: "Editors are advised to be cognizant of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people." RockMagnetist (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think after the recent improvements, her notability (and the sourcing for it) is much more clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional notability: Feduccia a noted paleornithologist argues that Maryanska and her colleagues (Osmólska and Wolsan) "noted for their careful work", produced in 2002 the "most impressive analysis of the oviraptorosaurs". Their analysis "unequivocally places the Oviraptorosauria with the Avialae, in a sister-group relationship with Confuciusornis, Archaeopteryx, The ..... which are successively more distant outgroups to the Oviraptorosauria. By their scheme, birds evolved from more primitive theropods, and oviraptorosaurs are birds that became flightless and, like the ratites, re-evolved some primitive features." (REF:Feduccia, Alan (2012) Riddle of the Feathered Dragons: Hidden Birds of China, Yale University Press) I think this shows that Maryanska has thus been recognised by a noted figure as having made a substantial and notable contribution to a much debated area in paleornithology. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • O.k., that tips the balance for me. I'll withdraw my nomination. Nice work, Msrasnw! I think it would be good to add the rest of that quote to the article. I'd do it myself, but The ... looked like a typo and I can't access that passage in the book. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Academics, many times even highly-influential English ones, are often very rarely written about. The fact that as someone cited above "Anthony J. Martin's (2006) Introduction to the Study of Dinosaurs Wiley-Blackwell - describes H Osmólska and T Maryańska as still being considered to be "Poland's leading experts on dinosaurs" (page 78)" is certainly more than enough. Sad that we have to have a debate about it. II | (t - c) 11:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a definite keep considering the fact that articles like this still exists even after multiple AfD attempts, where the subject has no real notability. I know, this is not a valid argument, but can't resist pointing out the kind of imbalance in Wikipedia. Salih (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that the work done by people here has provided sufficient evidence that she is notable. RockMagnetist raises important points about notability of academics. It would not be too difficult to go through the faculty lists of most departments of research universities around the world and note their important contributions. After all, academics are not hired at research universities and promoted without making notable contributions in their fields as determined by a consensus of their peers. Should we then simple include all academics who are at research universities around the world? I do not think there is easy to answer for many if not most academics.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2013 (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/Teresa_Maryańska&oldid=1183039465"