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. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 12:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvie Cloutier[edit]

Sylvie Cloutier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No clear indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination. I think I need to spend a bit more time on notability guidelines for academics. PepperBeast (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NPROF C1. The case isn't quite as clear as it looks at first glance -- the subject's most highly-cited papers have an extremely large number of coauthors, and to further complicate things, there is another scientist of the same name who works in a nearby field. I see several highly-cited papers with the subject as first or last author (in a field where I believe that matters), however, and I think it's enough. FWIW, Mendeley profile [1] is perhaps easier to look at than Google Scholar search results. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Google Scholar shows citation counts of 372, 347, 324, 260, 251, 247, 161, 137, 135, 125, etc., with three of these top ten having her as first author. This is enough for a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RW and DE. Nom may wish to consult WP:NPROF further, as many of their recent noms appear to clear that threshold rather easily. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as WP:NPROF C1. Besides the impressive top-10 cited works all being over 100 citation, the next page of results also has 100+ citation papers and the 20th paper is as 73.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clear pass of WP:NPROF - uncertain why this was even nominated. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She has won an award which passes WP:ANYBIO and she also passes WP:NPROF. Pamzeis (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2020 (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.