Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Richardson

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. Subject doesn't appear to meet either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. That could change in the future, but for this discussion the result is Delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Richardson

[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)

Here I go making myself unpopular again by nominating an a) WikiEd production about a b) female c) academic. But I honestly can't see the claim to notability as per WP:NACADEMIC here. The one award of note, the George Mercer Award, is an early career thing, good to give you a career boost but not what you would call "highly prestigious".

If you wanted to make a case, you would have to base it on citation index alone, and that's less impressive than it seems, because

the profile mixes in hundreds of cites from other Richardsons (including the 2nd highest ranker) and
three or four papers around the 100 mark are not "significant impact" (at least in Ecology - I've got two, and I'm a lazy postdoc with industrious PIs).

Look, I agree that we need to cover more academics and fewer ball players; but if we want to include researchers like Richardson, we have to work over our inclusion criteria. As it stands, I'm bound to note that she does not meet the stated thresholds. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see from the Revision History that it was created as a student project. It's had some publications removed by a Wiki Education editor "to avoid coming across like CV", but with wording like "currently offers freelance work" it still reads like that. It doesn't look like she would meet WP:NACADEMIC. I might check and see if any of her research has been reported in the general media (you never know, male breeding-season behavior in green frogs might have got some coverage). RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article paints the picture of a failed academic career. Not a good choice for student article-creation project nor a good choice to highlight the accomplishments of women in science (if that was the intention). And a best-paper award is not enough for WP:PROF#C2. Searching Google scholar for author:jean-ml-richardson finds two papers with three-digit citations, which might be enough for a borderline case for WP:PROF#C1, but I think in combination with the more negative aspects of the story (got an assistant professorship, didn't get tenure, went home and left academia) we're better off without this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I don't have a clear idea of what citation rates are good for her field, so will go by David Eppstein's view on that. I did not find any general coverage of her or her research, so she does not meet WP:GNG either. If it was kept, it needs to be trimmed of the "available for freelance work" tone in it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I think an h-index of 20 is marginally notable. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, those stats are deceptive - check how many other authors who share the last name have been mulched in here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Elmidae points out, the subject's GS profile is broken. A plain GS search for "JML Richardson" is much more productive, and it looks like all papers returned on the first couple pages are hers. From this search, I estimate an h-index of 17, and note that her top cited papers have 177 and 120 citations. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per David Eppstein. "Best paper" awards aren't significant enough to count for WP:PROF#C2, and indeed, a well-developed biography of a notable academic probably wouldn't waste time reporting on them. The only other possible route to wiki-notability would seem to be WP:PROF#C1, and I'd have to stretch to argue that. XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2019 (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.