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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia A. Berglund[edit]

Patricia A. Berglund (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)

Does not pass notability as an academic/researcher. She's a research associate that has been named as a coauthor on some research articles, but there are few secondary sources on google. Natureium (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She is a Senior Research Associate at the University of Michigan. Yes, many of the papers have large numbers of authors, but they also have very large numbers of citations. She is second author on "Lifetime Prevalence and Age-of-Onset Distributions of DSM-IV Disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication" with 13,248 citations. Her papers and book with only a few authors also have large numbers of citations. She is coauthor of Applied Survey Data Analysis (575 citations), the field in which she has made an impact. Confusingly on Google Scholar one needs to search for Patricia Berglund without the 'A' to see all this. Unfortunately the first paragraph of the article is a close paraphrase/copy of http://si.isr.umich.edu/faculty. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I cut out the text that looked to be copied. XOR'easter (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A research associate is usually a low-level job in academia. Even a "senior research associate". I'm not saying it's not a respectable career, but it's not something that would make someone notable. They would work under a professor and often under others such as staff scientists. I can't even find a profile for her on the university website. Natureium (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'll try to have a closer look at this one. In the meantime, it would be important to note that, if she is a flavor of "research associate", then she is not a PI, independent researcher, prof, or any such. This is a staff rather than faculty position at research universities, meaning her name on papers would typically be a matter of course rather than because of fundamental intellectual contribution. OTOH, if she has authored separate, highly-cited books on her own, that would be a very important consideration for satisfying PROF via impact on a clearly-defined intellectual contribution. Agricola44 (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know enough about the field to contribute more, but a first-author pub in JAMA seems to indicate she is at least sometimes doing to work associated with a PI or faculty member rather than merely as a matter of course. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • • I have a first-author paper in Science, but I'm definitely not notable. Natureium (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Not seeing the case for notability here, wikipedia is not linked in.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My sense is there's not much coverage of her or her work in news reports. I'm not qualified to judge her as an academic so I'll leave that determination to others here who know about such. But I used to work in market research, and the U. Michigan survey research center is highly regarded and I have no doubt that she's a top notch researcher with heavy duty expertise in survey research (given her books in Amazon). Unfortunately, I don't think she meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Changing to Keep per Lonehexagon (see below) and the 26,000+ citations.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:NEXIST given the number of published works in peer-reviewed academic journals which have received a total of 26,246 citations.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonehexagon (talk • contribs)

• Keep Per Lonehexagon. Montanabw^(talk) 20:45, 1 March 2018 (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.