Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charity Marsh


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Charity Marsh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I dislike nominating highly productive academics because I believe WP:NACADEMICS needs an overhaul (possibly at the expense of a few thousand ball players...), but seeing that's what we have to go by - she doesn't seem to qualify. No substantial independent coverage that I could find, no named chair, high honors, etc. Lots of publications, but that's not sufficient in itself. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 12:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 12:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 12:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 12:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I get a GS citation h-index of 7, which is not enough to pass WP:Prof: nothing else WP:Too soon yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC).
 * Delete there's basically nothing availble in secondary coverage. In the absence of WP:RS, the page is being use as a kind of Linkedin.104.163.139.33 (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep A Canada Research Chair satisfies Academic(5): "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." --Theredproject (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm. If that's what is meant by "named research chair", that sounds good. But I always thought it referred to things like the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, i.e. a single named chair, rather than one of (in this case) 2000 chairs... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that Tier 1 Canada Research Chairs satisfy WP:PROF, but Tier 2 Canada Research Chairs (which is what Marsh has) do not. The program explicitly distinguishes between Tier 1 as being for "world leaders in their fields" versus Tier 2 as "emerging researchers" with the potential to become leaders. The Tier 2 chairs are typically held by early-career academics (e.g. associate professor, not full), while the intent of #C5 is to recognize academics who are at farther advanced steps than full professors. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That is correct: tier 2 is not a big deal at all. It is also not a named research chair. Here is a long list of advertisements seeking tier 2 researchers. The tier 2 CRC is a "starter" chair for youngish, promising researchers. C5 also says explicitly that "Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments." So she does not qualify there. 104.163.139.33 (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Someone should nominate the related IMP Labs, which has the same problems. I also found a CBC interview with her, for her role as co-owner of a human movement business in Regina Saskatchewan.104.163.139.33 (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - lacks coverage in secondary sources, and the aforementioned issue with a 'Tier 2' Canada Research Chair makes me believe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON.  PK  T (alk)  13:34, 27 May 2018 (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.