Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Moreau


 * 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. لenna vecia  17:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Caroline Moreau

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable activist. Google search returns only self-promotion and trivial mentions. Article is faded to be an eternal unsourced stub. Damiens .rf 20:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, I don't even recall specifically why I created this stub. If my rationale of her being the lead author on a "key premature birth study" is inaccurate, then there is no notability to speak of. - RoyBoy 00:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons above. No notability shown. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep Adding some information about research productivity from Scopus. He own CVis a little out of date. /either notable or else near it.,  DGG (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Let me preface this by saying she may pass on some other grounds besides WP:PROF, e.g. if she is a well-known activist or a science popularizer (I'll defer to others to judge this aspect). However, if the primary basis is WP:PROF, then she conclusively fails the notability test. The article's wording suggests she's a professor/PI, but the Princeton website lists her as a postdoc. However, the real issue is her scientific record, which is misrepresented in the article. From a quick Web of Science search:
 * The main claim of notability the article furnishes is this: 'Her most cited paper, "Contraception: From accessibility to efficiency " in Human Reproduction 18 (5), pp. 994-999 z)2993) has been cited 48 tijmes [sic]' – we are led to believe that she is lead author or primary contributor. WoS gives the author list as Bajos N, Leridon H, Goulard H, Oustry P, Job-Spira N, and the COCON group. Checking the actual publication, we find her name listed in a footnote. Evidently her contribution was not sufficient to qualify for the primary author list.
 * The other main claim the article makes is this: "She has published 30 [[peer-reviewed article, in standard journals". WoS lists only 10, mostly non-cited journal articles (although one of them does stand out from the rest with 17 citations). Why the discrepancy? Partially, it is the fact that some of the "peer-reviewed standard journals" listed on her CV are not academic journals at all, so they do not appear in WoS. For example, checking the "Population and Societies" (a 2004 article on her CV – note that the 'full text' link next to this pub actually goes to some entirely unrelated Pubmed page) homepage, it describes itself as a "popular science journal published in French and English". As near as I can tell by browsing a few articles, this publication is something like a population-related news magazine – articles tabulate a lot of facts and statistics, but do not furnish new research results (which scientific journals, by definition, must do). Here's a recent example article. The other factor in the 10/30 discrepancy seems to be other articles that she only appears in a "group author" footnote on (as above).
 * Again, perhaps she qualifies as a science popularizer, but I think the most accurate description of this individual as an academic is that she is a postdoc who has a research record roughly commensurate with others that are also early in their careers. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC).
 * It is accepted that authorship is only valid if the name is in the main list of authors. "Acknowledgements to...", Useful discussions with...", "and the something group" etc. do not count. Academic practice is to list all contributing authors in author list even if there are 100 of them. Some high energy physics groups do this and may have an author list of half a page of fine print in their papers. Record of LP is adequate for an early career researcher but the revelations of Agricola44 show that WP notabilty has not yet been achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC).


 * Delete. Not a notable researcher. DGG, your edits to this article were below your normal par. Fences and windows (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It doesn't matter what criteria she can sneak in under, still not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2009 (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.