Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Stephens


 * 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) Dusti*Let's talk!* 03:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Christine Stephens

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

he coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (biographies) and WP:PROF requirements. There is no in-depth coverage of her work. Her h-index/citations are not particularly high, worse, at least two entries there are NOT written by her - not sure if she includes work by her students or what, but why is or such there? Red flag. Red flag number two is IMHO the fact that she is a professor at the same institution that awarded her PhD, this is not considered a 'best practice' in the modern academia (through in itself this has no indication on her biography). Also worth noting that citations in the article are mostly to articles by her, not about her. No indications of awards, honors, etc. Bottom line, as I said, fails NPROF and all wider biographical guidelines. PS. There is no consensus that being a Full Professor in New Zealand or Australia is sufficient for NPROF#5, see ongoing discussion here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

*Delete per nomination. Mosaicberry (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC) Withdrawn. Mosaicberry (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with nomination 9H48F (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, the anomalous articles seem to be from the same issue of the same journal, and two more clicks show that she was the guest editor of that issue. So Google Scholar erroneously read guest editorship as authorship. But take all those away and there's still, what, over 4000 citations to her work? Is that right? And that's not enough for WP:PROF? Tough crowd. Bakazaka (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PROF as seen on Google Scholar search . I count 6 papers with over 100 citations. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:PROF as argued above, after removing anomalous results. (And being guest editor of a journal issue is itself, I'd say, a point in an academic's favor. Not enough for WP:PROF by itself, of course, but still a positive datum.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. She easily passes multiple WP:PROF criteria, including WP:PROF (at least well over 4000 citations in Google Scholar regardless of any anomalies regarding two of the articles in a journal issue she edited) and WP:PROF by holding the highest academic rank in New Zealand which is the closest thing NZ has to distinguished professor. Especially in combination her notability is fairly evident. --Tataral (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nine publications with over 100 citations each on Google scholar is enough for WP:PROF#C1 for me. I'm not sure I buy the #C5 argument: Massey has both named professors and personal chairs, beyond the rank of regular full professor, but one criterion is enough. And the nominator's opinions about whether it is appropriate to hire former students as faculty is completely irrelevant here. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.