Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Sherwin


 * 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Chris Sherwin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

De-PROD'd without explanation, the subject fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, and WP:PROF. After stripping away every article and citation written by/ associated with the subject, essentially nothing is left. Per WP:BIO1E, the subject was a low-profile individual. Also, I think WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 19:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * comment - accusations of this biography being a memorial has poisoned the well and I take offense to the accusation. I consider this AfD compromised as a result of the false allegations which 14:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC) have no standing and absolutely no basis for why I created this biography. Atsme 📞📧 01:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: Research performed by this individual was significant and notable. The studies performed were covered by independent third-party sources. Meets GNG.  Montanabw (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - highly notable in his field, a cited published academic who has made significant contributions to his field of study, particularly in the husbandry and welfare of laboratory animals. WP:ACADEMIC clearly states: Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable. There is little doubt that his work meets the notability criteria in his academic field, (entomology-zoology-veterinary biology), having served as a member of the working group that drafted the scientific risk assessment which was reviewed by the Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) panel and adopted as their scientific opinion on the “Aspects of the biology and welfare of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes” published in the 2005 EFSA Journal. He also authored Chapter 25, The Husbandry and Welfare of Non-Traditional Laboratory Rodents in "The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory and Other Research Animals" (8th edition). Atsme 📞📧 20:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Chris Troutman. Sorry, but as sad as it is that this editor has died, Wikipedia is not a memorial. We have WP:RIP for that. This article was started just a month after his death which leads me to believe that this was solely created for that reason, and not on notability grounds, which in itself, is very thin.   Cassianto Talk  20:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @Cassianto: I've no opinion on this article and am only here as I saw the AFD being discussed elsewhere, but "created a month after his death" isn't particularly unusual and shouldn't be taken as a sign of anything untoward—it's fairly common for someone to read an obituary and think "this person looks interesting, I wonder what Wikipedia says about them?" and then create an article when they realise Wikipedia doesn't already have one. When you see a biography sourced only to obituaries it's a huge red flag, but otherwise I wouldn't consider the timings of any concern. &#8209; Iridescent 21:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I take that on board, and perhaps that was the case, but that’s just as hypothetical as my scenario. The truth is, we may never know the reasons for creating it, but it does seem quite coincidental, wouldn’t you agree?  Cassianto Talk  21:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Cassianto - I did not create this article as a memorial, and I am offended by the accusation. Please stop it. The man is notable in his field of academics and there is plenty of verifiability. Just look at his body of work. Animal behavior and welfare are highly notable areas of research, especially with laws that have been passed to make animal abuse a felony in some states. You might want to read the article, and look at his work in highly notable academic and scientific journals. You don't think I can see what's going on here with these false claims of memorializing? That alone should void this AfD. It's shameful. Atsme 📞📧 00:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I’m offended that you’re offended and being offended in the first place doesn’t make you right. How do you know I’ve not read the article? Could you provide a spot of evidence to suggest I haven’t? Is it your intention to bludgeon everyone who comments differently to you? It’s shameful.    Cassianto Talk  07:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as subject fails GNG and WP:NACADEMIC as there just isn't sourcing attesting to his notability anywhere, including the academic world. That he has some published works is par for the course for academics and does not make him notable on Wikipedia. There're no independent sources talking about how he's done groundbreaking research (I know the memorial thing exists but that's a personal memorial, not an academic RS discussing his contributions). I realize the subject was a Wikipedia editor and that those !voting keep above were wikifriends with this editor and contributed to this article but being a Wikipedia editor doesn't make the subject notable, either. Perhaps someone could publish this memorial page on a blog; given WP:NOTMEMORIAL, it does not belong in Wikipedia. Ca2james (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC) edited 20:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable fails GNG. Article obviously written by wikimates after his death - WP:NOTMEMORIAL in spades. Would have nommed it myself had I known it existed. Roxy the dog. bark 20:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, please - this has nothing to do with memorializing anyone. He already has a memorial. This is about the impact he has had on animal welfare and husbandry - the welfare of laboratory animals, behavioral studies that are extremely notable. The man's work and the impact he has had in his academic field are what matters. Read the article, and keep in mind he has over 2,000 citations in scientific and academic journals. Atsme 📞📧 23:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop this badgering Atsme, it is pathetic. Roxy the dog. bark 11:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The nominating editor quite obviously has an axe to grind with the "community" as they describe it. I have been editing for just a year now, and have been assisted by some of these editors, but have only messaged with the target subject once, so I am quite objective. The nominating editor has thrown five notability guidelines at this subject that says the subject fails, which seems excessive, difficult, and unfair for the editor of the article to have to respond to all of them and overzealous of the nominating editor. Also, the nominating editor has quite obviously thrown down a gauntlet here: and shown he is not neutral on this article. He has also found some others editors who have also obviously been apprised of the fact that the article subject was a Wikipedian, and thus the article needs to be shut down. They could not have come up with this information on their own. The fact that the article was created a month or so after the death of the subject does not mean it is automatically non-notable. I don't think the author of the article is able to get a fair shake in this AfD.  dawnleelynn (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please ignore my message as I made unfounded and unprovable accusations including editors who have colluded to vote together. And I was unapparently misunderstanding a message on a talk page for Chris about the nominator accusing the community of doing this all the time. So, I have nothing to add to this discussion, but I have learned much. dawnleelynn (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Has an axe to grind? . Nominating an AfD does not mean that the nominator has a personal vendetta against the subject matter, and I think it’s quite wrong of you to suggest otherwise.  Cassianto Talk  21:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Then why did the nominator title a section j'accuse? here which, in French, means literally "I accuse," and then accuses the community of always composing articles like these after a fellow Wikipedian dies?  dawnleelynn (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You'll note there was a blue-link in my comment; this sort of thing has happened before. Wikipedians do this stuff. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * C'mon, Chris - you brought this AfD for all the wrong reasons, and I am offended by it. You are accusing me of memorializing an editor I barely knew. Hogwash! I deal with animals and vets on a daily basis - I've worked with biologists-zoologists in the field before I retired, and as a rancher, it's part of my daily life. The latter was my only reason for writing this article. Nobody knew DrChrissy's id - it was surprising to many of us when we found out how accomplished he was in his field of academics, in animal behavior, husbandry and welfare. He was researching if fish could feel pain. Who wouldn't be interested? City folks, maybe but there are a lot of readers out there from rural and suburban areas who would have an interest in his work...and yes, he is highly notable in his field of academics, and I'm embarrassed that so many of you are unable to see it as NPRs because you're so focused on the memorializing BS. What a shame. Atsme 📞📧 23:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to support Atsme in this respect because I am neutral on this matter. I did not know the subject of the article when he was an editor, but I knew of him as we were all members of the same wikiproject. Atsme is telling the truth that none of us knew his identity prior to his death. There is no evidence that this article was written to memorialize the editor. The timing of the article does not make a case for it being a memorial. dawnleelynn (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I get this but I think what you are saying is that I misunderstood the intention of this message. If so, I sincerely apologize. dawnleelynn (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. It was this AfD; before your time. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're too gracious. dawnleelynn (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. GS h-index of 18 (note: this may be an underestimate ) sufficient to pass WP:Prof in this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC).
 * According to WP:NACADEMIC, Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. Ca2james (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * An unsourced opinion written a decade ago. Citations can be used to compared like with like, but some experience is needed. There is much debate on the matter in the archive pages in WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC).
 * Without being able to compare Sherwin's h-index with someone (preferably a leader) in the same field, I don't see how the h-index helps evaluate notability here. Ca2james (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't need to; it's entirely imaginary. H-index does not share a consensus for notability, as you pointed out already. Some editors feel empowered to ignore our guidelines and just make stuff up. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that, per WP:PROF's concept of the "average professor test", a comparison of such metrics with those of other veterinary researchers would in fact be useful here, one way or the other. I'm not ready to take a position here, and am watching the discussion, but I want to note for transparency that there is a discussion of this AfD at my talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Veterinary scientists would be a good place to look. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The citation search I did for C.M. Sherwin came back 2526, h-31, i10-54. I also found this interesting article about H-index which states: The top 25% of Professors had a H-index of 30 or greater. There is discipline variation... and when you go to the link, it provides a list with various disciplines. I also posted this info on the article TP. Atsme 📞📧 01:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

*Delete as per above - It's sad they've died however we need to put our feelings aside and judge based on the notability etc which unfortunately in this case there isn't much notability at all, Fails WP:NACADEMIC & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * comment C'mon, Davey2010 - he doesn't fail - he passes with flying colors. Don't let the memorial crap poison this well. The man spent decades researching animal behavior, helping farmers better accommodate their animals, helping researchers better accommodate laboratory animals which serves to benefit researchers. Read his bio - read the articles he's written...look at the individual citations in the scientific & academic journals to which I provided a link to his Google Scholar results. It is clearly notable. Atsme 📞📧 01:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per sources below as well as those in the article, Meets GNG. (Thanks for the ping :)) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment not a field I'm familiar with and not a North American academic, so I'm less likely to be of use in assessing based on PROF, but I do want to point out that whatever one thinks on the GNG vs. SNG debate, the one SNG where it is abundantly clear that meeting the GNG is not required is WP:PROF. We just had a site-wide RfC on PROF to determine its relationship with the GNG and the overwhelming consensus was that PROF is independent of the GNG and academics don't need need to pass the GNG if they pass PROF. Arguments rooted in the GNG here don't have a policy-basis if it is determined the subject meets PROF. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @TonyBallioni, the bar at WP:PROF is intentionally much than the GNG—which of the criteria do you think this person meets? I can see a potential claim to notability under the "multiple independent non-trivial sources" part of GNG, but saying WP:PROF is the correct standard to apply would be a strong argument for deletion. &#8209; Iridescent 22:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm aware, and that was actually one of my arguments in the recent RfC for why it should be independent of the GNG. There is unfortunately a misunderstanding with PROF that thinks the requirements of it are lower because the sourcing tends to be primary, which is why I commented. You have situations where you do have a PROF pass, but a failure of the GNG in many eyes for this reason. As I said, not a field I'm familiar with and not an academic from a region where I'm aware of the academic climate, so I'm don't have an opinion on this case, If the argument based on the GNG is that he has received coverage/citations based on his academic work, but this work does not rise to the level of meeting PROF, then I would agree with you that it would be a good argument for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It has always been my opinion all SNGs are independent of GNG unless they have verbiage otherwise. I would be fine not nominating this article if there was any criterion I thought the subject passed, GNG or an SNG. Sorry if my nom was confusing on that point. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you're fine Chris. I had seen a comment assessing only on the GNG, which is why I threw this in here. As I said to Iridescent, and I implied in the RfC, I think failure of PROF is a strong argument for deletion in itself for most academics. I didn't want this to turn into a PROF vs. GNG war as has happened recently on a few AfDs. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Tony, a successful academic whose field of study is entomology-zoology-veterinary biology-animal welfare is not as widespread as one might imagine, and probably rarely even considered in urban areas. The number of universities around the world that even offer courses in veterinary medicine or animal science are not plentiful. This field of study clearly falls under the NOTE section of WP:ACADEMICS. Despite the handicap, the guy is highly cited in scientific journals, academics, and has made a significant impact in his field. It is undeniable. The memorial crap is just that. Atsme 📞📧 01:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , and other participants who were unsure if Sherwin met the requirements per WP:ACADEMICS, I invite you to re-examine the article now that it has been expanded and more secondary sources have been cited, and also please review the article TP for other sources that are listed but not yet included. Atsme 📞📧 16:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Add to ping. Atsme 📞📧 17:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Here we have GNG met even if PROF is a little light. His research was very notable. I fail to see the argument that the article has only primary sources; the Nature article is clearly third-party, and the Hume fellowship is also notable. As for creation, I personally have heard about these lab animal welfare experiments for some time, they have been widely publicized, and speaking only for myself, I had not connected this wikipedian's identity and notability until the obit was published, publicly linking the person as a wikipedian. I was blown away that we had a researcher of this level of notability amongst us.  Montanabw (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - his research has had a significant impact - for example see this Humane Society Institute for Science and Policy report wherein his research is cited twice. There are numerous others which substantiate the impact his research has had in his academic field. The article doesn't have to list all the citations - there are way too many to list - it's a summary. Atsme 📞📧 23:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A single paper of his was cited twice in that document, to consecutive sentences. It's perfectly normal for researchers' papers to be cited and such a situation does not mean he's notable. Ca2james (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, two cites does not make a person notable, but 1500 citations, when I stopped counting on GS, does. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC).
 * From WP:NACADEMIC: GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites and other self-published sources. Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be significantly more than the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material. In essence, it is a rough guide only. Again, comparisons of Sherwin's GS cites with GS cites for similar researchers are needed. The numbers by themselves aren't enough to determine notability. Ca2james (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Read the actual citations - not the guidelines - that's how you determine significance of truly reliable scholarly material. Atsme 📞📧 02:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect. You've been a Wikipedian for some time and you know what WP:N says. That citations exist does not necessarily satisfy N. Maybe you think it does. Please don't confuse the issue. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that N is a better metric for the hard sciences than for things like this (and useless for the law where no one cites each other at all). Also, the standard here is GNG, and we have a significant number of scientific respect (as noted by  as well as third-party coverage from mainstream news sources.  GNG is met.   Montanabw [[User talk:Montanabw|(talk)] |undefined 02:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comparison of citations works for any area in which people publish provided that one compares like with like, i.e. one does not compare theologians (a field with a very low citation rates) with pop-psychologists (often high rates), still less with computer scientists (a very high cited field). Anyway, this one passes both WP:Prof and WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been listed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Agriculture Atsme 📞📧 02:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 02:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Citation counts are above threshold for WP:PROF, and the two online obituaries  while not adding much to notability in themselves give us plenty of sourced material to use for our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to WP:RIP, which is where memorial articles about Wikipedians go. The subject fails notability guidelines, and the citations do not prove notability per Wikipedia guidelines, and the infobox is misleading (a research fellowship is not an "award"; the claim of having "influenced" the Animal Ethics Committee of the International Society for Applied Ethology is cited to a single non-substantive footnote which lists more than 20 people). It's human nature to want to memorialize and honor a colleague who has passed away, but the venue for that on Wikipedia is WP:RIP, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It has nothing whatsoever to do with honoring anyone's life or death so please stop the misrepresentations and fallacious RIP claims ad nauseum - that's why it's a biography and not a BLP, and that's where it ends. I am offended by your allegation that I created this article as a memorial. Try looking at the 2000+ citations in notable academic and scientific journals, and the importance of his discoveries over decades of researching and documenting animal behavior and other studies involving animal husbandry, welfare, living conditions - zoology - entomology - poultry - laboratory animal welfare - and farm animals. His work is cited on a global scale. It's really sad that the fallacious claim of a memorial has become such a distraction to his notability and the significant impact his work has had on so many levels - an impact that will have a lasting effect. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 03:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's especially fallacious because nowhere in the article is any connection to Wikipedia even mentioned, nor has anyone here been using the Hume Fellowship as an argument for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did mention the Hume fellowship in my second comment, but I'll leave it to the science folks to expand on its relevance.  Montanabw (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And now the Wikipedia connection is mentioned, too. I'm striking my comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - he is notable in his field, the husbandry and welfare of laboratory animals. His best known paper has been cited 380 times and numerous others are often cited, so I believe he meets WP:PROF. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep & Comment: A notable, influential, well respected  and much cited academic.  If the OP wants to clean up WP, suggest he concentrates on all the articles about celebrities who's only notability is being Famous for being famous during their 15 minutes of fame. WP is not Facebook, it is an encyclopedia so we should keep the above questioned article as being encyclopedic and in scope. The fact that the subject's  true identity and notability only became known to the WP community a few months  after his death is neither here nor there, as Dr. Sherwin  would still have been worthy of a WP Bio whilst in life. So the proposal to delete holds no merit. Aspro (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was unsure at first, but when I looked around for sources, I saw how often he's cited. I've added several secondary sources that discuss his research:
 * Nicol, Christine J. (2015). The Behavioural Biology of Chickens. Wallingford: CABI, p. 164.
 * Fraser, David (2013) [2008]. Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, p. 199.
 * "Behavioural need", in D. S. Mills and Jeremy N. Marchant-Forde (eds.) (2010). The Encyclopedia of Applied Animal Behaviour and Welfare. Wallingford: CABI, p. 52.
 * "Light and behaviour", in D. S. Mills, Jeremy N. Marchant-Forde (eds.) (2010). The Encyclopedia of Applied Animal Behaviour and Welfare. Wallingford: CABI, p. 387.
 * Friend, Ted (2005). "Book reviews", Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 43(4), July 1995, p. 304.


 * In addition, there is the Nature article. He does seem to meet WP:PROF: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline ... as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." SarahSV (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- meets GNG in my mind; here's sample coverage of Schwerin's research on laboratory mice:
 * Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context, by David Fraser
 * "Curious mice need room to run", Nature
 * WP:RIP does not seem to apply; the article should be evaluated on the merits of Wiki notability. I believe that these requirements are met. Note: The page should probably lose the long list of journal articles, or at least limit them to a few most significant / widely cited ones. That way the article would look less promotional, and actually more substantive. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:PROF #1 and 6.
 * PROF#1, reliable evidence of significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, is met by SV's and K.e.coffman's sources and by the obituary, which notes that among his "influential studies" and "notable theoretical contributions" was a seminal paper on invertebrate suffering which anticipated current research on insects.
 * Additionally, his chairing the Animal Ethics Committee of the International Society for Applied Ethology arguably qualifies him for PROF#6, held a highest-level administrative post at a major academic society. This feeds back to his impact on his field: as the chair of this committee and author of many recommendations and official positions, he had a significant effect on the consensus in the field about ethical standards, which filter down to national rules about how hundreds of millions of laboratory animals must be treated. FourViolas (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've been agonizing over this AfD, and anyone looking at my talk page can see that I have been very skeptical about the notability of this page, and I'm trying very hard not to let my personal Wiki-friendship get in the way of my objective assessment of notability as we define it here. (And all the speculation about editor motivations here does not help.) I've been doing a lot of digging, and I've come to the conclusion that the subject does indeed pass WP:PROF, albeit perhaps a bit narrowly. I went through every page in Category:Veterinary scientists, and for each person in the present era I looked at what I could find of their publication metrics, assuming that those pages pass notability and that these persons are fair comparisons in terms of working in the same scholarly field. Dr. Sherwin's metrics are a little below the median for the group, but well within the range (Janine Brown scores considerably higher, but all of the others are very close). I've also critically evaluated the citations of his work that are mentioned by other editors above. I think we have to be careful there. Simply citing work by "Sherwin et al." in another scholarly work does not make for demonstration of notability, because the scientific literature is full of such citations and they are typically routine. So I've disqualified most of the ones mentioned by other editors above. What I feel that I need to see are independent sources that do not merely cite Sherwin's work, but that explicitly discuss what the authors consider to be the importance and influence of his work and attribute to him by name. And we do have that. This discussion assesses his research in the context of earlier research, and concludes that what he did moved the field forward. And even more important is the Nature news piece. Nature is at the very top of scientific journals, and the fact that they decided to run a report of newsworthy research findings that is entirely devoted to Sherwin's work and its importance is exactly the kind of independent notice required by WP:GNG. It quotes two other veterinary scientists, Donald Broom and Kathleen Mathers, as assessing Sherwin's work to be important. For me, that seals the deal as putting this page in "keep" territory. (And Atsme, please stop badgering the deletes, OK?) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You need not have agonized. Now that the GS profile has been established, it gives a slam dunk pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC).
 * Thanks. I'll admit that I have a gut-level negative reaction to bios of WP editors, and that it wasn't until I really looked into the details that I felt able to reach the conclusion that I did. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – I was going to source this article better myself, but I see now it is unneccessary. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do. The nom is correct that if you remove all the subject's own materials and non-independent sources (e.g., U. of Bristol stuff) there's very little in the way of RS other than passing mentions. This article is likely to be kept (if it is kept) on the basis of nothing but academic citation rates, and people above are even challenging that.  I'm not finding a lot with the usual non-paywalled search techniques.  Did find some obits and lots of passing mentions, plus academic citations to his work, but there's a dearth of pre-death, non-trivial coverage in indy RS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  05:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep for now, based on citation rates and on non-trivial post-death (obituary) coverage. Seems pretty borderline to me, absent some  (non-Bristol) in-depth coverage before his death. The Nature piece is good to see, but like the Understanding Animal Welfare GBooks hit found by Tryptofish, appears to be another passing mention/cite (and both are about the same rodent and running-wheel work):  "Behavioural scientist Chris Sherwin provided an example of the approach in his study of ...", followed by a description and Sherwin's conclusions that "mice are strongly motivated to use a running wheel" and are less happy without one. That's something everyone familiar with rodents already knew. Having proved it statistically with an ethological study is necessary scientific backup of common-sense observation, but not really a big deal.  There's a lot of other work he did that was more important.  Both of these pieces are really about the rodent behavior confirmation, and mention Sherwin as the person who led the research, but they don't focus on him nor do they indicate that the research was important rather than routine.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  05:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Credit where credit is due, it was K.e.coffman, not me, who first found it. I was just expanding on the point. But I disagree with your analysis of it as merely being a passing mention of something that everyone already knows. There is more to the analysis of "cost" than just concluding that the mice like it. And the Nature piece quotes another expert as being surprised by the magnitude of the effect, and also describes additional research about antidepressants interacting with the effect. Nature does not run that kind of piece about routine research. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This should not have been prodded as that process is only for "uncontroversial deletion. ... PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." As the article was created and developed by experienced editors, opposition should have been expected. Andrew D. (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep A quick search throws up sources such as this, this, this and this, which while not huge amounts of coverage, does suggest it is perfectly possible to write a properly sourced article about him. The sources found by others upthread also add to this confidence. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your second link is an article written by Chris Sherwin "head of sustainability at leading design and innovation consultancy Seymourpowell" and the fourth is seemingly about the same Chris Sherwin. SmartSE (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, seem to be notable both as an academic and as a Wikepedian. In particular "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed,", e.g. just the cage design stuff has led to changes in how laboratory animals are handled, and so he is notable on that basis alone (though he may be notable for other reasons too). SemanticMantis (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources cited in this article substantiate Mr. Sherwin's notability as an academic who made substantial contributions to the literature in his field. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily passes GNG, NEXIST etc. And it is interesting.  Has more than basic citations.  Aoziwe (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Influential academic who comfortably meets the requirements of WP:Prof and GNG. Thanks to the creator and expanders who have fashioned this into an excellent and nicely presented article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Notice of this debate was included on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poultry <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 02:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep an influential academic, per PROF: " The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed" I'm a veggie, I'm also in Bristol. Chris Sherwin was one of those names who came immediately to mind for the welfare of animals, particularly those less immediately cute and fluffy. He has had long-term influence on lab practice. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep editors since this AfD started have improved the article such that it has better demonstrated that it meets WP:PROF (the impact criterion specially), additionally the sources shown in this AfD may mean that the article passes on GNG anyway, although I think that may be more tenacious. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I think notability is proven by all the reliable sources now in use. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * keep Notability demonstarted. And Atsme, I generally understand nom and their nominations to seek to show the article in it's worst light, I would too. L3X1 (distænt write)  23:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as appears to meet WP:NACADEMIC criteria 1. Why the article was created is not really relevant.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Thanks to the editors who have improved the article in recent days. In its current state, it shows notabilty. The emotion that has clouded this debate is unfortunate and not useful, in my opinion. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It looks like this is going to be kept, partly on the basis of NACADEMIC criterion 1, which in turn is based on Google scholar h-index and citation count. Id asked for some comparison numbers but didn't really get any, so here are some. I'mt sure comparing Sherwin with veterinary scientists is the best choice because Sherwin was much more about animal welfare and ethiology. These categories include Temple Grandin, who is obviously notable; Google scholar gives a citation count of 16836 and an h-index of 62 for her (excluding her autism works). One of Sherwin's co-authors, Christine J. Nicol, has a citation count of 7918 and an h-index of 54. Another example is Stephen Herrero, who has a citation count of 3467 and an h-index of 33. My point is that Sherwin's numbers are below these numbers. Ca2james (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For one thing, that makes me think that we need to turn Christine J. Nichol blue (more so than turn this page red). I think Temple Grandin is by far too high a bar to set; she really is in a class by herself. Herrero (who isn't strictly a veterinary scientist) has metrics pretty similar to Sherwin, who according to Atsme is cites 2526, h-index 31. None of the people you cite is actually in Category:Veterinary scientists, for whatever that's worth, and some of the present-day persons in that category have lower cite numbers than Sherwin does. And more importantly, the arguments for keeping are based on much more than h-index. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I was also concerned that so many people are using Google Scholar and dismissing the problems with using citations counts from it. I checked Scopus instead as it's more conservative (though not as much as Web of Science), and the Sherwin has an h-index of 21 (excluding self-citations). I just checked in agricultural entomology in my field, and this level of output and citation was normal more for somewhat established but new professors not far into their tenure. That's not meant to compare to this field, but give an idea how the index can vary (though we are often housed in neighboring buildings and treated similarly when it comes to vet/agriculture research). In the examples you listed, Nichol had an h-index of 41 and Herrero had an h-index of 18.


 * About 50% of Sherwin's publications fell into Agricultural and Biological Sciences disciplines, and about 33% were in Veterinary in Scopus. You can also use Google Scholar to get an idea what the h-indexes are for the journals so at least you're using the same (though overestimated) values: Animal behavior and ethology, veterinary medicine, animal husbandry. While definitely not an exact science, you can compared the author's h-index to journal h-indexes in their field to get a general idea how they compare (i.e., do you get cited more than journals in your field do). In my field, 20ish the norm of a moderately productive just tenured professor, and that plays out with the google scholar journals too. It looks to be about the same in Sherwin's fields' h-indexes, so it looks like he was fairly average in terms of citations for his field. This is all why I really don't think citation metrics have a place as a main discussion factor in notability discussions though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Even without Google Scholar or any of the metrics that can be argued back and forth until the cows come home, he has already surpassed the minimum requirements for notability via the significant impacts he's had in his scholarly field, all of which has been presented and well referenced in his biography. He easily met the minimum requirements for GNG and WP:ACADEMICS: 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
 * Nature article
 * BBC News
 * (11 May 2000) "Cockroach capable of feeling pain, says study", The Daily Telegraph, by Roger Highfield.
 * The book, Pleasurable Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good, author Jonathan Balcombe
 * Animal Studies Journal by Helen Tiffin
 * The Ranger (UK news)
 * The book, Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context by David Fraser
 * The Encyclopedia of Applied Animal Behaviour and Welfare edited by D. S. Mills, Jeremy N. Marchant-Forde
 * <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 00:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * First, do not change other people's threading to alter who they're replying to as you did here. That's highly inappropriate in addition to the badgering you've been told to knock off above. As I stated above, the metrics really shouldn't be a major focus, but those that are relying on them appear to be overstating the contributions because of using inappropriate metrics that do not appear to pass the "average professor test" of WP:ACADEMICS with such flying colors. That is all I was commenting on since I did not vote, so you don't need to continue expounding on the subject of an article you created. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the cite index clarifications, . It looks like he was an average professor who doesn't meet NACADEMIC., some of the sources you listed discuss one or another of Sherwin's studies, and are clearly just citing or describing his published papers. Those - the Balcombe, Tiffin, Fraser, and Mills cites - don't count towards notability. Researchers get their stuff cited in teclxtbooks and by other researchers all the time; it's not an indication of notability. The BBC source does quote him regarding a study he was coauthor on (probably this one) but, since he's one of three authors, I'm not sure that him being the spokesperson contributes to his notability. That leaves the Nature source since I can't evaluate the Telegraph one (I don't know if he was quoted or if the article is just making fun of the study, which is what the headline indicates. Ca2james (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ca2James, you really need to stop bludgeoning me with your minority views - it is not helpful. Do you not see the contradiction in your summary? In one breath you're insisting the H-index/metrics are not reliable but the minute you think they work in your favor, they suddenly have reliability. There are far too many variables in what was presented for me to accept any of what was last presented as being any more reliable than what I and others have already presented and cited. It is simply another view. With regards to understanding the difference between a citation VS multiple authors writing about the impacts of research by a notable veterinary scientist/animal behaviorist who has made significant discoveries in improving the welfare of poultry, and caged animals in laboratories and zoos, CIR. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 13:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Once again, we are conflating two different sets of notability criteria.  While it appears that Sherwin would qualify under WP:PROF based upon his work (see, e.g.  and others), his work also meets GNG because it received substantial coverage outside of just the scientific literature, as demonstrated by the source material now in the article. The nitpicking of whether the coverage by the BBC "counts" is really a big absurd.  So let's just quit beating this drum and close as keep.  Montanabw (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I cannot understand the apparent urgency a few fans of horses feel for ending this AfD absolutely as soon as possible. I think both you and Atsme have taken this personally, which is both unfortunate and inappropriate. Comments from Atsme like and  (among others) seem to reveal some sort of persecution complex tending toward BATTLEFIELD-view problems. Clearly this AfD has brought out the worst in her. I think the both of you would do well to seek counseling and reexamine your choices.   Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * For whatever reason, I was asked at my user talk page to respond to Kingofaces here. Kingofaces, thank you very much for that information, which is very helpful. For me personally, my reasons for being in favor of keep were based primarily on things other than those kinds of metrics, and I personally find those metrics largely annoying. Beyond that, I can't think of anything more to say about that. But continuing from my use of the word "annoying", I think that there is way too much commenting on editors instead of on content in this AfD discussion, on both "sides". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I asked, because I respect your opinion. Thank you. -Roxy the dog. bark 00:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: Doesn't have the appearance of a memorial page, and to my knowledge the important issue in determining whether an article is a memorial page is not a subjective intent we might infer from those involved—it would seem in such a case that there would be no principled manner to distinguish between a clear memorial page and any biography of a deceased person written by someone with more than a fleeting curiosity in the subject. Rather, it is a matter of objective appearances: Whether a reasonable person would believe it's a memorial page. The timing—that this article was only created after the subject's death—is something I view as relevant, but not very persuasive. It is routine that Wikipedia articles are created, expanded, or otherwise heavily modified around the time of a subject's death. Without something more to cast this article as violating WP:NOTMEMORIAL, I must conclude that this article does not violate the policy. I've seen a lot of AfDs of articles on Wikipedians recently where it's assumed that we should avoid writing about Wikipedians, or at least more strictly question their notability than with other subjects. I don't think that's quite right, at least in the absence of clear policy as regards writing about Wikipedians.As to the WP:PROF and WP:GNG bases for deletion, I'm not convinced. The sources indicating notability in the article and discussed above are fairly persuasive. I also find the h-index to be persuasive, but neither compelling nor sufficient—I believe this is entirely consistent with WP:PROF. I find the arguments attacking individual sources as being irrelevant for the purposes of determining notability to be unpersuasive. The totality of the indicia of notability—that is, when viewed as a whole rather than as isolated data points—lead me to conclude that this subject meets both WP:PROF and WP:GNG. This is even in light of the flaws that have been noted with respect to some of the sources. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:41, 28 October 2017 (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.