Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Horton


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Ann Horton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Other than being the first woman to be appointed as a lecturing staff in the department of physics at Cambridge university, I see no reason for her to pass GNG. Daiyusha (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. An obituary in Nature is a strong suggestion that she is notable, but multiple sources would make a clearer case for WP:GNG notability. I don't think our current academic notability standards are well adapted to people who flourished 100 years ago, but according to the obituary she published roughly 25 papers. Google scholar lists 34 for author:ac-davies published before 1940, but those also include a small number of unrelated publications. The citation counts are low but I think that is partly reflective of changing citation styles that make modern citations easier to index. It's perhaps worth noting that her husband Frank Norton (FRS and of unquestioned notability) himself only had 44 papers, most in collaboration with her . —David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Slightly weak keep — Given the time period, I'm happy enough with the Nature obituary establishing notability. (Frank Horton's obituary in 1957 describes her as "a distinguished physicist and administrator".) I concur that WP:PROF is mostly geared toward evaluating researchers active today. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources provided are adequate for WP:GNG. Since this person is no longer living it is not a case of promotion like so many biographical entries here are. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Frank Horton was a member of the royal society, and one of the sources says that he published most of his research along with students, "one" of which was Ann, whom he later married. Should collaborating with a student necessarily mean the student becomes notable as well?. Agreed, some of the research she was involved in had a mention in a book, but those books are all published by cambridge themselves, I dont think that is an independent source. Daiyusha (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the books is from Oxford UP, and another from Stanford. Moreover, the two worked as a team, published as a team and are credited together as a team; we don't override that and arbitrarily assign all the credit to the senior partner in a collaboration. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The Nature obit is the main source, but it's a big deal.  WP:NPROF C1 says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."  I think this is weakly met here by the Nature obit + other sources pointed out here and in the article.  Agree that we shouldn't try to hold her to the citation count standards that we look for in BLPs. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as meets WP:GNG. Well-sourced considering the time period and the field. No concerns about promotional purpose. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nature obit and vice-principal of a Cambridge college. Pam  D  13:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can not understand why this was nominated, subject clearly meets GNG. Netherzone (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep History maker and meets general notability. Also, note, that women scientists were not "documented" as widely as their male counterparts and stereotypical fame and fortune isn't a notability requirement, let alone was it common for women in the sciences. If I had a dollar for the number of women scientists nominated for deletion. ""Why we’re editing women scientists onto Wikipedia" Missvain (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Having an obituary in Nature is a big deal. Having photos archived by the University of Cambridge library is a big deal. A clearly notable figure and an important contribution to Wikipedia’s coverage of women in science. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - serous scholar when women just didn't get tenure in STEM fields. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2020 (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.