Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cáel M. Keegan


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Cáel M. Keegan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't believe this scholar satisfies WP:ACADEMIC. The page has sources, sure, but on close inspection I do not feel they provide the significant coverage required. Polyamorph (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

'''Keep. 'Keegan's page cites five reliable and independent sources, including NBC News, Vice, Inside Higher Ed, and Michigan Public Radio''. Although each source has a only a brief discussion of Keegan, altogether they show that Keegan is an essential voice in contemporary discussions of transgender identity, rights, and representation. The stature of these sources demonstrate that while Keegan is an early career scholar, he is already acknowledged to be a recognized expert in this important field.

According to WP:BASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."

These five sources are indeed "reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I argue that the coverage of Keegan in these sources is more than "trivial," and thus this entry meets the criteria that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."

Chronophoto (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment google scholar suggests this person has not made a significant impact on their field. The mentions of Keegan in those sources is rather trivial, and the articles are not about Keegan themselves. Very much a case of too soon. Polyamorph (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 21:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Several academic publications that discuss the impact of Keegan's work have been added to the page. Since Keegan meets the Wikipedia general notability standards I think the page should be kept. Regarding citation count and citation index - those numbers are less meaningful for humanities disciplines. Keegan's impact on the public sphere has been documented. Here are some well-recognized critiques of citation counts and indexes as a way of measuring impact: "Publishing frequency and types (ex. books vs. journal articles) vary from one field to another, precluding comparisons across different subject areas. Authors who frequently cite their own work manipulate impact metrics and make them less reliable. Impact metrics focus on the volume or attention received rather than the quality of research. Having a large number of citations is not necessarily a marker of merit, as articles may be cited for negative reasons." Chronophoto (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 35 total citations, it doesn't matter that it's humanities, that is very low academic impact for any subject. Polyamorph (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * are you in any way associated with Keegan (professionally or personally)? Polyamorph (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * * As I wrote on the article's Talk page, I have briefly worked with Keegan as a co-editor. However, I am otherwise entirely independent of Keegan and have tried to adhere to Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. Chronophoto (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * * I think Polyamorph's stance on this article and my stance on this article are very clear. I have made my arguments as best as I can. I will now step back and accept whatever decision the Wikipedia editorial community makes on this page. I do ask that if the editorial community decides to delete the page, that I be allowed to "incubate" the page for a few months until Keegan's book on the Wachowskis comes out, at which time there will likely be a deluge of press on him and the book and the page could be revised to take this press into account and republished. Chronophoto (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt your integrity, but you do have a conflict of interest and should have passed this article through Articles for creation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the fact that there may be a deluge of press on him in the future does not make up for the lack of significant coverage now. Polyamorph (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: I've volunteered to incubate the article in 's stead. (Fully disclosure, I've monitored her classes under my Wiki Ed account.) If this deletion discussion is closed as delete, I'll incubate/edit this and when it's ready, submit it through AfC to help assuage any COI concerns. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡)  17:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * When you say you've volunteered do you mean you are volunteering now or you have volunteered in some off-wiki conversation with . Because there have been two wiki ed editors and three single use accounts contribute to this discussion (either here or on the article talk page). In any case, I don't support incubating as if deleted then the community will have deemed it non-notable.Polyamorph (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)