Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiona McLaughlin

: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. Secret account 01:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

=[[Fiona McLaughlin]]=

:{{la|Fiona McLaughlin}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Fiona McLaughlin}})

This biographical article fails to meet WP:PROF as McLaughlin is described as a senior researcher and her significance is not otherwise clear. Examining Google Scholar and checking her staff page on http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/SCI/osap/people/mclaughlin_e.htm, it is not clear that the requirements of WP:PROF will be definitively addressed by later addition of available sources. Ash (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment, Google News shows she was chief scientist of the Institute of Ocean Sciences in 2004 Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 12:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Sure, her staff page says "in 1996 as chief scientist of a southern Beaufort Sea expedition; and, in 1997, as chief scientist of a multidisciplinary expedition in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago as part of the SHEBA/JOIS project". These were expeditions (i.e. projects) rather than fixed departments so I do not believe the role of chief scientist in this sense fulfils the intent of the PROF requirement "has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post" (or other equivalent section in PROF). I suspect that the Google News source you found is likely to be using "chief scientist" in this sense rather than as "the" chief scientist of the IOS.—Ash (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • There were multiple authors on the Science (journal) article -- but McLaughlin was the one reporters chose to interview for their coverage of the article. That could mean the reporters regarded her as the most important author, or the most articulate, or the most photogenic (Canwest owns a TV network). Geo Swan (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Ms McLaughlin is a scientist who just published an important article in Science (journal), on an important topic -- global warming. She and her colleagues found something surprising and disturbing -- recent changes to the chemical composition of the waters of the Beaufort Sea were interfering with plankton ability to form their carbonate shells. The Ocean was close to the brink of being so acidified that it would begin to dissolve the shells of existing plankton. Neither Science (journal) or the wikipedia is supposed to engage in sensationalism. Neither of us is supposed to do the literary equivalent of waving our arms around and shouting, "Warning Will Robinson! Warning Will Robinson!". But, this is a "Warning Will Robinson!" moment. The Science paper is only a recent instance of a long record of significant publications. Under "recent publications" her official biography listed 21 publications. Geo Swan (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The importance of her research area or the IOS is not at issue, I'm certain quite a few other articles exist on global warming and acidification. If you wish to consider her notability based on her body of publications then WP:PROF#Criteria#1 appears to apply. However from the list of publications, they appear to be team efforts rather than establishing her name in particular. Clearly to demonstrate her impact on the field, third party sources would need to support the article establishing her name as significant. Adding a few such third party sources that do this would address notability.—Ash (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Using Scopus, I find 31 articles. The highest cites are 119, 117, 115, 102. The journals are almost entirely journals of the highest rank in the subject. This is enough to establish her as an authority in the subject. We normally do say that for anyone with multiple citations over 1200 -- not that I would propose such as a formal criterion, because it depends on the subject. I think nominating an article because " it is not clear that the requirements of WP:PROF will be definitively addressed" is ignoring WP:BEFORE. If there is significant indication that they might be met, the appropriate thing is to look for additional references. If it is fairly clear that they will not be, then AfD is appropriate. I point out that our requirements for keeping an article do not include "definitive" proof of anything. "Reasonable", or "on balance" are closer to the usual way we do things. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Your criticism of the nomination is interesting as I did actually point out that I had checked Google Scholar and I had checked her staff page which gives a fairly comprehensive bibliography. Perhaps the nomination should have been positively phrased, for example "There is no evidence in Google Scholar of any significant published articles attributed solely or led by this author that have been recognized by third party publications as having substantial impact or that this author holds a highest level post or has received a prestigious international award...", however I kind of expected that to be implied by referring to WP:PROF. Thinking through the checks I did make and considering the clear criteria of PROF, I still consider that in raising this AFD I did go through the process recommended in BEFORE.—Ash (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

:::my apology, for you did indicate that. The point of where the balance is remains, if it is not clear whether of not something should be deleted, it is not deleted. But I realize that this may just be a matter of wording & you genuinely doubt the notability. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:Prof #1 as found by DGG, also GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
  • Weak Delete I think this is borderline. The press refs are marginal but National Geographic is a big journal. She has a paper in Science but she is one of n authors and not 1st or last. She doesn't seem to have written a notable book or originated a notable idea. I've added the Science ref and it will be interesting to see what the result it. NBeale (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • With regard to the National Geographic article, the mention is only a tangential 4 word quote "Plan for logistical nightmares". Unfortunately this does not do much for notability in her field under the PROF criteria. I agree with your summary for the Science article; it actually has 10 contributors representing 7 different organizations, consequently the article may be important but it again does not clearly establish McLaughlin as notable.—Ash (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:PROF, WP:GNG, and WP:ANYBIO. Click23 (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|(talk) 12:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep per DGG's argment; article subject's contributions to field appear to be substantial enough to satisfy notability criteria. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I don't see any case on general WP:GNG grounds — the National Geographic mention is trivial — and I'm not happy relying purely on citation counts, but the citation numbers given by DGG look like a pass of WP:PROF #1 to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

: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.