Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catheleen Jordan


 * 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   no consensus -- Y not? 04:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Catheleen Jordan

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

Autobiographical, probably not notable. If someone disagrees, I'm personally happy to let it stay. Riffraffselbow (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - A couple of minor publications does not make then notable.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Close-ish to passing WP:ACADEMIC, but not quite. Non-notable. Jujutacular talkcontribs 22:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep "probably not notable"? Did you check sources before nomination, I guess I can read into your statement that you did. Did you? 14 google hits. Can be developed further. Ikip (talk)
 * "strong keep" on what grounds? Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Tops GS cites 61, 22, 21, 16, 15, 12, 10 ... h index = 7. Does not seem to be there quite yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Weak delete. Co-author of 3 books and above citations suggest she may pass WP:ACADEMIC, though this is not my field. Deciding factor for me is that it was created by so is a clear WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY: "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged". I note she's one of the few faculty members without a homepage on the school website, and suggest creating that page instead. Qwfp (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Personally, I don't care whether this is an autobio or not, that is a reason to check for POV, not for deletion (it is discouraged, not forbidden and at least this editor is honest enough to use a recognizable username). However, the GS cites are too low as yet to establish notability according to criterion 1 of WP:ACADEMIC and being president of a local chapter does not satisfy criterion 6. --Crusio (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: I have followed the below discussion and see no reason to change my delete !vote. --Crusio (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Commentators should be careful of the many false-positives in this case because of the commonality of the surname. I did a fairly specific WoS search, coming up with results similar, but slightly less impressive than Xxanthippe's GS search. Criteria are "Author=(jordan c*) Refined by: Institutions=(UNIV TEXAS) AND [excluding] Subject Areas=(PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH OR NEUROSCIENCES OR DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE OR ONCOLOGY OR INFECTIOUS DISEASES OR LAW OR MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL OR MICROBIOLOGY) AND [excluding] Subject Areas=(CLINICAL NEUROLOGY OR IMMUNOLOGY) AND [excluding] Subject Areas=(MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI." finding 11 listed publications, which I then checked manually. 8 of these are actually research articles, the others being editorials, book reviews and such. Citation counts are 20, 8, 6, 6, 5, ... for an h-index of 5. Her university page lists lots of books published, i.e. "Category: Book" from their website, although most are actually book chapters or listed as "expected", i.e. not published yet. The significance of these chapters is unclear – please comment, if able. Her university page also lists awards and honors (see bottom), but these are mostly listings in the "who's who" variety of PR directories, and are not considered terribly significant. The overall picture that emerges is of an average professor having an average output of work over a roughly 25 year career – unfortunately no way to distinguish her from the tens of thousands of other profs that fit the same description. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk)14:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Note - I think you're missing some of her major cited work with that search, such as the book where she was lead author. Take a look at this Google Scholar search. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it shows an h index of only 6 which is way below what is commonly taken to be notable on these pages. The subjects operates as an academic and should be judged by those standards. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment. I must concur with Xxanthippe here. Her h-index of either 5 or 6 (depending upon how much latitude you want to allow for argument's sake) is far short of what the consensus standard on WP:PROF #1 has become here, i.e. at least 10. (Remember that h-index is not a linear measure.) I again concur that the article, short as it is at the moment, is still written in the context of her as an academic. How would we be justified in saying that, well, yes she is an academic, and yes, that's precisely how the article is written, but we're not going to use that test because we don't think she'll pass, but we do think she'll pass using this other test. Doesn't strike me as equitable. Rather, these situations are specifically why we have WP:PROF in the first place, i.e. to cover the special element of creativity and authoring that academics do as their jobs. I think that last clause sums up why WP:PROF is indeed a little more stringent than some of the other tests. Now, if somehow there's been an error and it can be shown that her impact (through total citations, h-index, achievement award, or some other measure) is, in fact, much higher, then I think we'd have a different story. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Why does her h-index keep changing? Xxanthippe first said 7, and Agricola44 said 5. Now Xxanthippe says 6. I've always gotten 7, using the calculator from here, fwiw. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends on which database is used. There has been vast discussion about this matter on these pages. An h index between 10 and 15 is usually taken to be borderline for WP:Prof #1. The subject falls way below this. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC).
 * The index is not changing, but rather it depends, as Xxanthippe says, on what database the figure comes from. Why is this? Several reasons. First, different databases count citations differently, for example WoS only counts citations to refereed journal articles from other refereed journal articles, whereas GS counts citations from other venues too, like book chapters and conference papers. Second, the scope of coverage for these databases is not the same. I think the problem in Jordan's case is that no matter what database is used, she is nowhere close to the usual minimum of at least 10. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC).


 * Keep: Notable and has Ref - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Question. Could you kindly elaborate on how you feel subject is notable in light of the above info? The main question at this point seems to revolve around the impact of subject's books and book chapters. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Delete, fails WP:PROF -- the books are student textbooks, no surprise that they don't get cited. There's no evidence that that they are particularly significant textbooks either. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yes, I've surprised myself by !voting keep. I just cleaned up the article to see if it was worth saving, and to my surprise, it was (imo). My deciding factors:
 * I was able to find four books where she's listed as a co-author (not just a chapter contributor, and yes, these books have already come out)
 * WorldCat says her books are in 857 libraries
 * According to WorldCat, for the book where she was lead author, the 1st edition (1995) is held in 260 libraries and the 2nd edition (2003) is held in 167 libraries
 * Google Scholar shows that she's been cited dozens of times
 * Google Books shows that she's been cited dozens of times
 * WP:AUTHOR says "The person's work ...[is] in many significant libraries."
 * Overall, I think she meets the standard, although the article currently only contains two sentences and therefore needs a great deal of work. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. 'Being cited dozens of times' is not considered sufficient for WP:Prof #1 notability on the basis of currently applied conventions. As noted by myself and Agricola44 hundred of cites are required. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Reply: First, I didn't say she met WP:PROF (because, as you point out, the criteria are vague). I said she met WP:AUTHOR. Or does 857 libraries not count as "many"? Secondly, I used "dozens" because I wanted to be conservative, and because I didn't want to go through and count them all. I still haven't—but that's because I started to go through all the citations I found here, here, and here (eliminating duplicates, of course), and I figured I could stop after I hit 200. Or does 200 not count as "hundreds"? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * keep clear example of regional notability, but regional notability is notability nonetheless, checked google news has coverage in most texas newspapers on her expertise, her research and her leadership at the university. books and papers seem well cited for the field. --Buridan (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * delete I don't see "regional notability" being compatible with WP:PROF (which is intended to measure impact of scholarship on the world of ideas, her peers' work). The "14 google hits" cited by IKip's "strong keep" begin with the top hit, a Fort Worth Star-Telegram obituary containing the line "Survivors: Wife, Mary J. Jordan of Bowie; two daughters, Catheleen Jordan of Arlington [...]" and another newspaper article "Neighbors oppose proposed gas station" with the sentence "Resident Catheleen Jordan said data she found online proved to her that gas stations bring crimes to a neighborhood".  I don't think any of the news articles demonstrate that she passes the GNG (amounting to Significant coverage of her as a subject), and I think others above demonstrate that she doesn't pass WP:PROF through measures of scholarly impact. I would be very happy to change my !vote if this bio were expanded to discuss some of her more influential work, explain why it was influential, and relate it to historical developments within her discipline etc..Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is the crucial point. The article now appears to say all there is to say about her using reliable sources -- the sources that have been identified here don't provide anything that can be used to expand on her impact on her field or anything else.  What we have then, is an article that gives the strong impression that she is prima facie not very notable.  What is the point of keeping an article that in essence tells readers the person is not notable?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not very notable is fine, but that is different than not notable. I think she is not very notable too, yet she is notable, has had significant regional notability, probably has a name known by 10k or more people given media exposure and publication of textbooks., sure it isn't rock-star... but it is notable.  --Buridan (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. The article embodies a contradiction: if it says all that can be said, then it simply tells the reader that this is someone about whom there isn't much worth knowing.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * which by implication means that the article points to something that is worth knowing. Gotta say that we are getting too close to blp issues with this 'not much worth knowing' issue.  It is clear to me that she's notable, albeit in a regional way, and that there is something worth knowing here, perhaps not to you, but you aren't the only audience.  think about the people in her field, she seems to be a regional leader, well published there also.  not all articles are super great 20k word things... most are stubs, this isn't. --Buridan (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "the article points to something that is worth knowing" Are you sure you realize what you're saying? That it can be the point of an encyclopedia article to inform readers that this is not a significant person...  Anyway I think this "regional notability" thing is getting out of hand -- unless someone can point to a policy/guideline where the concept is established.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. All this effort has only made it more clear that she doesn't pass WP:PROF. And I don't understand or buy the "regional notability" argument: for a keep based on that argument, I'd expect to see e.g. multiple in-depth profiles of her in local newspapers, or something like that, but all I see is an academic whose academic notability is not enough to be more than regional. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: Why does it matter if she meets WP:PROF when it's clear she does meet WP:AUTHOR? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We impose stricter standards on academics because in many disciplines all academics will have multiple acadmic books in libraries, but nevertheless we want to limit our attention to the academics with greater significance. In this context, being published and in libraries isn't interesting enough by itself, and it doesn't imply the existence of sources we could use to write something nontrivial about her or her work. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PROF says "If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, if they meet the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria." WP:AUTHOR says it applies to "Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals." There's no policy or guideline I can find that says if you're in academia, the only notability guideline that can be used is WP:PROF. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Your quote is slightly out of context. It is "they may still be notable" (note emphasis), which I take to be further clarified by caveat #2 "An academic who is not notable by these guidelines could still be notable for non-academic reasons". So for example, maybe the subject is also a famous musician, writer of a best-seller, etc. In checking the Google link you furnished above, it appears that her publications are all solidly academic: "Clinical assessment for social workers: Quantitative and qualitative methods", "Students with questionable values or threatening behavior: Precedent and policy from …", etc. Add to this that she is an academic and that the article is written in the context of her being an academic. I get that you want this to be considered under a different test, but her case seems to fall squarely within the jurisdiction of WP:PROF. There is a long precedent of AfDs just like this one and there is no real justification for not applying the same standards here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Question: so where WP:AUTHOR says it applies to:"Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals"it should actually say:"Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals"Sorry to sound dense, but what I'm hearing is that a guideline that specifically says it applies to academics and professors should never be used for articles about academics and professors, unless the article in question is primarily about work they've done outside of academia. And conversely, if someone who clearly meets, say, WP:ATHLETE happens to have spent most of their life as an academic, their article cannot focus on their work in academia. Is this correct? And if so, is there a policy or guideline that states this? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * weak Keep Looking at the books, for the most widely held one "Clinical assessment for social workers : quantitative and qualitative methods" she is not coauthor, but   the contents of the book at wordldCat makes it clear she's co-editor-- she contributed to only 4 out of the 10 chapters. Only one of her books is by even a medium-important publisher-- Family practice : brief systems methods for social work by Brooks/Cole. The question is whether these and the articles show her as important in the field, or show these books (which are textbooks) as important textbooks. Given that all the universities supporting social work programs weem to have them in their libraries, I'd say they are.  The academic notability is more than regional--David E, look at the distribution of libraries holding the books.   DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: You've got an error: you said, "Only one of her books is by even a medium-important publisher-- Family practice : brief systems methods for social work by Brooks/Cole"—actually, three of her four books are published by Brooks/Cole. Only one is not. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the practice of counting libraries doesn't take us very far. It doesn't help in writing an article.  Please note this passage of WP:PROF as well: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject."  That's where I think we are here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:51, 31 August 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.