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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Killick[edit]

Kate Killick (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)

Was deprodded without improvement, and a rather bizarre accusation. Does not meet WP:GNG, and her positions and citation counts don't appear to meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete Sources from Google Scholar:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cmi.12161

https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-12-611

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2014.00422/full

The GNGs are just that, guidelines. The subject of this article has received over 150 citations from her work, I would consider this notable significant coverage from reliable sources, as seen above.

I would like the nominator to explain how they landed on this page? Women in Red is an important opportunity for the Wiki community. I doubt very much that this article would be nominated for deletion if the subject was male. comment added by Schlossbergfes (talk • contribs)

The editor of: Cell Signaling in Host–Pathogen Interactions: The Host Point of View, Diana Bahia independtly acknowledged Dr Killick for contributions to this work, this further supports notability.Schlossbergfes (talk

This article featured in the Irish Times involved Dr Killick and her colleagues fight for more funding for the sciences.^[1] Schlossbergfes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that our wiki-notability guidelines are not "binding". But in fact, the guideline for judging notability of scientists and scholars was invented precisely because we did not want to judge scientists and celebrities in the same way. Many scientists do important work but don't appear on TV, or get glossy profiles in magazines, or even have much biographical information available at all. The Wikipedia community recognized that we'd have a better encyclopedia if we could write about these people. On the whole, this is good for marginalized groups. For example, it means that we only have to deal with the sexism in the scientific community itself, rather than further penalizing women scientists by only having articles on them when they clear the even higher barriers of gaining widespread public recognition. We delete biographies of male academics all the time, and an article on a man with the same publication record would almost certainly be deleted. XOR'easter (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Citation count is light for WP:NPROF C1, and I don't find anything meeting other criteria -- at the very least, it's WP:TOOSOON. Originator of the article seems to be mistaken about notability requirements, saying in the history "author is published, clearly passing the criteria for an article". And 150 citations wouldn't be enough in math (an especially low citation field), let alone biology. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The three Google Scholar sources posted above are just links to the paper. The Irish Times reference is an opinion piece of which Killick's name is only mentioned once among many, many other names. I cannot locate any significant coverage from reliable sources that indicate notability. On another note, and this may not belong here, I do not appreciate User:Schlossbergfes accusations that this is part of some sexist conspiracy to remove women from Wikipedia. --Darth Mike^(talk) 16:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There was never a mention of conspiracy, you are planting that word to discredit my points. You are using guidelines, that are not binding, to hold a scientist to the same criteria you hold celebrities when it comes to perceived 'status' and 'notability' and it is despicable.

Unless you can find a threshold with an exact number, 150 citations are notable. This meets Criteria 1, and must remain as an article. Schlossbergfes (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend that the editors for removal read the article Gender Bias on Wikipedia.Schlossbergfes (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Russ Woodroofe. I think part of the problem here is that WP:NPROF criterion 1 is (perhaps intentionally) vague. People could easily read "significant impact" different ways. To clarify the community thinking on the criterion, the "specific criteria notes" note that significant impact typically means "either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". That threshold is not met here. As Russ Woodroofe noted, it's too soon for an article on this topic. Ajpolino (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sadly, fails WP:NPROF. I agree it looks to be WP:TOOSOON. If there are articles on male scientists of a similar early career stage, they should be nominated for deletion. The creating editor seems to misunderstand the level of notability required for academics - just being published is not enough. PamD 17:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pace WP:BIAS. The current sourcng is all primary. Like Darth guy above, a WP:BEFORE search found no third party, independent reliable coverage demonstrating notability. WP:TOOSOON clearly applies: the chances of an ECR with three papers uder their belt being independently notable in their field is phenonomnally unlikely (although I grant not impossible, and not perennially).
  Disclosure: Arguably, I was brought here by Schlossbergfes's WP:CANVASing  :) ——SN54129 17:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• You can put as many back to back adjectives in front of your threshold, but as long as there is a number in concrete, it can subjectively be viewed as being met. In an environment where your editors are extremely, highly, superduperly male, it gives more weight to the female articles who actually pass the test. It is my opinion that 150 associations for a female scientist is meeting the C1 criteria. Schlossbergfes (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete This article has been active for months and was not taken down, I'm questioning the timing of this deletion request. Just because other articles may not be added to Wikipedia, doesn't mean that this one shouldn't. One must use critical thinking, not notable guidelines.Dafteire (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Err. ​Unfortunately the criteria for keeping articles on the English wiipedia is...the notability guideines, not "critical thinking". An unfortunate state of affairs, perhaps, but there it is. ——SN54129 18:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No you're right, why would we use critical thinking, silly me.Dafteire (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're right, the artice will be kept. ——SN54129 19:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sometimes new articles just don't get noticed. Or nobody who sees them wants to go through the trouble of starting a deletion discussion. That in and of itself isn't an argument for keeping them. XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but the article has been viewed 164 times, while not a large sum, it should be noted that over a hundred views before it was flagged. Maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate, but there is a level of prestige to the works listed, and the removal argument is only citing standardisation as their logic.Dafteire (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dafteire: If you look at the history, the first deletion request was done as part of page curation, in which Onel5969 is very active: there is a substantial backlog in reviewing these new pages created by less experienced editors, and I think that probably explains the timing. They will have been working through the list - their other recent nominations for deletion were Ahman Pategi, Brandon Parrish, Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari, Ashland Skate Park - 3 men and a skate park. PamD 17:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PROF and WP:TOOSOON. She has respectable citation counts for a postdoc, but postdocs (and assistant professors and the UK/Irish equivalents) are usually too early in their career to have attracted enough attention to their works for academic notability, and Killick does not appear to be an exception to this general rule. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Off to a good start but far WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. I note that there has been canvassing for this AfD, which drew my attention to it: I otherwise might not have noticed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete As others have set out in detail, fails WP:NPROF. Another case of WP:TOOSOON. Edwardx (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To the editor who will most likely remove this article from Wikipedia: you are silencing a scientist because of notability. Science has no room for celebrity; furthermore, their research is not art, but fact. The lowly 'deletists' above are vultures that never had the chance to actually make a difference in life, and as such, are altering the course of fact. Please know, as soon as you click this page out of existence, you are smothering true discovery. I hope you feel shame for you sexist suffocation.Dafteire (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Strike dupe vote by Drafteire.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please refrain from personal attacks. Many of us are active in creating and expanding articles about women in science, and no one here has any grudge or animus against Dr. Killick. We simply have looked at the available documentation and concluded that it is too soon to write an article about her. We would say the same about a man with the same publication record. As explained above, this has nothing to do with "celebrity"; indeed, we work against "celebrity culture" by writing about women who have earned professional esteem as scientists without receiving the kind of media attention that men almost certainly obtain more easily. XOR'easter (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NPROF. Spleodrach (talk) 17:15, 18 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.