Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Sawchuk

:{{la|Kim Sawchuk}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kim_Sawchuk Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Kim Sawchuk}})

Non-notable, per WP:NACADEMIC, and a lack of secondary sources that are non-affiliated. All of these sources provided are affiliated, except for the French one, which appears to just have a passing mention of Sawchuk. A Google search shows no reliable sources that cover her in detail. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Reworked article. All sources appeared to be by the subject of the piece. Subject appears to be a significant researcher in the small academic field of aging and technology. While I would grant that there are few sources outside of academia for her life, I have utilized university news and seminar publications as well as printed books to substantiate her prolific international teaching and research experience. In as much as it was possible, I avoided using web material that came from her research projects directly. It may be that the French press has additional information, but 1) the article that was cited was not accessible (subscription only site) and 2) not speaking French I do not know how to search for data. SusunW (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

::Ageing and technology is a tiny field, and is not really an academic field unto itself, but more of a tiny, not yet established, subset of a larger academic field. As I quote WP:NACADEMIC, "Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided." You could also judge based on the WP:GNG guideline, which I have done below:::I will divide sources into multiple categories, to explain why they are not satisfying of WP:GNG

:::Affiliation, of which the first source, second, forth, eleventh, fifteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, and twenty first, are some.

:::Not in-depth coverage of Sawchuk, of which the third, sixth, seventh, tenth, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, twentieth, and twenty first, are some.

:::Unreliable source, of which the eighth is one.

:::Miscellaneous reasons, like the fifth source, which is just a search results page of stuff Sawchuk wrote. This also includes the ninth source, which is just a testimonial by Sawchuk about the benefits of a research program, put on the website of the research grant. This is kind of like having a testimonial by someone who got a subscription to the New York Times, that talked about how good the NYT was, was published in the NYT, and then using that testimonial to establish notability.

::Also, Sawchuk isn't really notable under WP:NACADEMIC either, as even if you were to assume that "ageing and technology" is an actual field of study, by applying the so-called "average professor test", she is really just an average researcher in the field of ageing and technology, and is not any more notable than anyone else in the field. Also, Sawchuk doesn't satisfy criterion one of WP:NACADEMIC (which you are arguing), as she hasn't been cited much, her lectures aren't very prestigious (just run of the mill), and she hasn't really done anything that would make her notable. As stated, we should delete, as she, as a subject, is non-notable. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the discussion {{ping|Chess}} I do not believe that it is logical to assume that simply because she works at, attended, or led a lecture/conference at a University that the press department publications of that university are influenced by her. Like any news outlet, they report on newsworthy happenings. I admit that I do not know Wiki policy here, but it seems logical to me that we must assume in good faith that university presses would reasonably follow journalistic ethics, as much of their revenues are derived from printing reputations. Many academics do not have the international experience that she does and while it may not be as extensive as some, hers is extensive. I did not list all the conferences I found, only enough to substantiate that she has international lecturing and visiting professor status. She may also meet academic notoriety via section 8. As she has been the chief editor of the Canadian Journal of Communication. The journal was established in 1994, thus has a lengthy track record. It is peer reviewed both by Canadian and International Scholars. Because it is limited in scope to "communication studies as practiced in Canada or with relevance to Canada" it may not have as wide a scope as other journals, but it does appear to be an important journal in Canada, which has a lengthy history. I do not know this woman or the person who originally wrote the article. My review of it and contributions to the article were driven simply because she appeared to me to have made a significant regional contribution. She is no Noam Chomsky or Henry Louis Gates, but Wikipedia doesn't require that she be. SusunW (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - recent expansion suggests significant impact on the field, from fairly substantial sourcing that helps meet WP:NACADEMIC, Sadads (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep this is a clear case of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and a good example of how wikipedia is overcoming systemic bias in its articles; this individual meets WP:GNG adequately and has been innovative in her field. WP:NACADEMIC is met by "any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. I see 4 and 7 easily are met. We also need to remember that it is harder for Canadians to get as wide of publicity than for US citizens. Montanabw^(talk) 05:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Now that the article has been competently sourced, there is obviously no further question of deletion.--Ipigott (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SusunW&diff=next&oldid=656228311 I'd prefer that someone other than you two came to the discussion.] Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 12:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

:::I agree {{ping|Chess}} that others should weigh in. I would hope that someone on the Canada project would do so. I have no doubt I will learn from you as well. Every editor I have worked with has taught me something about using Wikipedia. It is a difficult system to learn. {{Yo|Ipigott}}'s skill is invaluable as he speaks many languages among them French. Asking someone to weigh in with documentation is exactly what collaboration is about IMO. SusunW (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep She seems to be notable, among other things, under WP:NACADEMICS # 8 "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area." In [http://coms.concordia.ca/faculty/sawchuk.html this source] she is presented as "the editor" of the Canadian Journal of Communications. "The editor" would mean there is only one editor, and that is the "head" of the journal as required under this criterion. The journal is described as a "nationally and internationally renowned journal in the field publishing work in communications, media studies, cultural studies and journalism". Kraxler (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per rationales provided by Kraxler, Montanabw and SusunW and satisfies both WP:NACADEMICS and WP:GNG. freshacconci talk to me 18:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Withdraw, per section 8 of WP:NACADEMIC. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 19:07, 13 April 2015 (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.