488:
649:; Claxton's problem is that she worked in a small and specialised area, where high citation counts are unlikely - not that she was non-notable in that particular area. An alternative justification is that one really good newspaper article isn't quite enough (we'd like two) and her research isn't maybe quite enough, but two not-quite-enoughs add up to a pass. One day, people interested in tardigrades will be grateful to us for keeping thsi information.
434:
is an essay as is not vetted by the community, so let's keep the discussion policy compliant. I'm expecting such citations due to nature of her research. Someone here would come up with such coverage if they have access to paywalled journals. I'm not a subscriber of research journals. Just created it
53:. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and participation leaning closer to consensus that the subject's coverage within her narrow but important field are sufficient to keep.
209:
342:
Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline.
315:
690:
one really really strong article will go a long way. We've got that in our article. While the GNG asks for multiple, we've got non-independent sources and I'd claim this is a good case for IAR.
166:
203:
291:
287:
283:
113:
98:
279:
514:
academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements
491:
139:
134:
645:, I appreciate I'm going out on a limb here, but my feeling is that by NPROF people are notable if their work is seen as significant
143:
337:
126:
93:
86:
17:
224:
663:
I appreciate your position and going out on a limb for this; I'm keenly aware of the issues
Knowledge has had with covering
667:. The issue here is that NPROF requires more than one RS stating that a person's contributions are significant in a field.
191:
378:, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question.
676:
539:
469:
422:
303:
267:
170:
107:
103:
618:
718:
550:
Actually, her name isn't in the authors list of that paper. Does anyone have a reference for the actual review? -
40:
185:
453:
699:
680:
658:
633:
607:
581:
559:
543:
525:
503:
473:
444:
426:
367:
327:
307:
271:
181:
68:
386:
substantial number of references to academic publications of researcher other than the person in question.
376:
substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question
714:
603:
555:
521:
499:
350:
36:
231:
577:
650:
654:
449:
254:
217:
130:
628:
594:
is met, and whilst the Sydney
Morning Herald article is good, need multiple such sources to meet
456:
are not good arguments. I cited THREE because it is a short-hand way of asking you to meet your
440:
363:
323:
82:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
713:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
672:
599:
551:
535:
517:
495:
465:
457:
418:
395:
355:
299:
263:
245:
241:
197:
63:
695:
591:
573:
509:
431:
410:
664:
569:
122:
74:
595:
436:
359:
319:
160:
668:
531:
461:
414:
295:
259:
54:
691:
402:
independent sources. As I noted, I could not find anything other than the
257:
does not apply because she was not a professor at an academic institution.
348:
and made notable contributions to the taxonomy of the genus
Minibiotus.
460:
of verifying the claim that the article subject meets NACADEMIC.
354:
article is certainly an example of significant coverage, meeting
707:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
621:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
374:
In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a
316:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
156:
152:
148:
216:
627:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
721:). No further edits should be made to this page.
248:turned up no significant coverage other than the
278:Note: This discussion has been included in the
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
372:You've omitted the next sentence of NACADEMIC:
314:Note: This discussion has been included in the
647:by their peers, and in their area of research
230:
8:
114:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
313:
277:
530:Thank you. I missed that part of NPROF.
490:? Because that only has 21 citations on
413:that you believe establish notability.
513:
508:P.S. Don't need to be a professor for
385:
373:
344:As her article notes, she identified
7:
494:, which doesn't seem a lot to me. -
255:Notability guideline for academics
24:
282:lists for the following topics:
99:Introduction to deletion process
487:Is the 2013 review referred to
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
346:over 70 new tardigrade species
1:
242:basic criteria for notability
240:Non-notable researcher under
700:06:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
681:21:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
659:13:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
634:06:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
608:10:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
582:22:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
560:18:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
544:23:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
526:18:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
504:18:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
474:23:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
445:23:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
435:based on the news coverage.
427:20:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
409:I would recommend providing
368:19:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
328:19:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
308:19:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
272:19:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
69:01:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
390:Additionally, although the
89:(AfD)? Read these primers!
738:
710:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
394:article meets SIGCOV,
171:edits since nomination
454:there must be sources
351:Sydney Morning Herald
250:Sydney Morning Herald
87:Articles for deletion
398:requires SIGCOV in
450:It's only an essay
636:
632:
384:article is not a
330:
310:
104:Guide to deletion
94:How to contribute
729:
712:
665:women in science
631:
626:
624:
622:
590:I don't see how
572:not yet passed.
512:to apply, given
380:Citation to one
280:deletion sorting
235:
234:
220:
164:
146:
84:
61:
34:
737:
736:
732:
731:
730:
728:
727:
726:
725:
719:deletion review
708:
617:
615:
338:WP:NACADEMIC#1b
177:
137:
121:
118:
81:
78:
55:
49:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
735:
733:
724:
723:
703:
702:
685:
684:
683:
639:
638:
625:
611:
610:
585:
564:
563:
562:
548:
547:
546:
492:Google Scholar
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
407:
388:
331:
311:
238:
237:
174:
123:Sandra Claxton
117:
116:
111:
101:
96:
79:
77:
75:Sandra Claxton
72:
48:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
734:
722:
720:
716:
711:
705:
704:
701:
697:
693:
689:
686:
682:
678:
677:contributions
674:
670:
666:
662:
661:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
641:
640:
637:
635:
630:
629:Seraphimblade
623:
620:
613:
612:
609:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
586:
583:
579:
575:
571:
568:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
541:
540:contributions
537:
533:
529:
528:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
506:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
486:
483:
475:
471:
470:contributions
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
448:
447:
446:
442:
438:
433:
430:
429:
428:
424:
423:contributions
420:
416:
412:
411:three sources
408:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
387:
383:
379:
377:
371:
370:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
352:
347:
343:
339:
335:
332:
329:
325:
321:
317:
312:
309:
305:
304:contributions
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
276:
275:
274:
273:
269:
268:contributions
265:
261:
258:
256:
251:
247:
243:
233:
229:
226:
223:
219:
215:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
183:
180:
179:Find sources:
175:
172:
168:
162:
158:
154:
150:
145:
141:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
119:
115:
112:
109:
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:
92:
91:
90:
88:
83:
76:
73:
71:
70:
67:
66:
62:
60:
59:
52:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
709:
706:
687:
646:
642:
616:
614:
587:
566:
484:
403:
399:
391:
381:
375:
349:
345:
341:
333:
253:
249:
239:
227:
221:
213:
206:
200:
194:
188:
178:
80:
64:
57:
56:
51:no consensus
50:
47:
31:
28:
600:Kj cheetham
588:Weak delete
552:Kj cheetham
518:Kj cheetham
496:Kj cheetham
204:free images
574:Xxanthippe
715:talk page
651:Elemimele
643:weak keep
358:as well.
356:WP:SIGCOV
292:Australia
252:article.
37:talk page
717:or in a
619:Relisted
592:WP:NPROF
510:WP:NPROF
432:WP:THREE
406:article.
400:multiple
167:View log
108:glossary
39:or in a
570:WP:Prof
485:Comment
437:Diserak
360:Diserak
320:Diserak
290:, and
288:Science
210:WP refs
198:scholar
140:protect
135:history
85:New to
669:voorts
596:WP:GNG
567:Delete
532:voorts
462:voorts
458:burden
415:voorts
396:NBASIC
336:meets
296:voorts
260:voorts
246:search
182:Google
144:delete
58:BD2412
692:Hobit
284:Women
225:JSTOR
186:books
161:views
153:watch
149:links
16:<
696:talk
688:keep
673:talk
655:talk
604:talk
578:talk
556:talk
536:talk
522:talk
500:talk
466:talk
452:and
441:talk
419:talk
364:talk
334:Keep
324:talk
300:talk
264:talk
244:. A
218:FENS
192:news
157:logs
131:talk
127:edit
598:. -
516:. -
404:SMH
392:SMH
382:SMH
232:TWL
165:– (
698:)
679:)
657:)
606:)
580:)
558:)
542:)
524:)
502:)
472:)
443:)
425:)
366:)
340::
326:)
318:.
306:)
294:.
286:,
270:)
212:)
169:|
159:|
155:|
151:|
147:|
142:|
138:|
133:|
129:|
694:(
675:/
671:(
653:(
602:(
584:.
576:(
554:(
538:/
534:(
520:(
498:(
468:/
464:(
439:(
421:/
417:(
362:(
322:(
302:/
298:(
266:/
262:(
236:)
228:·
222:·
214:·
207:·
201:·
195:·
189:·
184:(
176:(
173:)
163:)
125:(
110:)
106:(
65:T
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.