Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colleen Cassady St. Clair


 * 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. Kevin (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Colleen Cassady St. Clair

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:PROF notability criteria. From what I can tell, she's no more notable than an average university professor. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete on WP:PROF. Qworty (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Top GS cites 61, 61, 36, 27, 23... h index = 12. Respectable indication of scholarly impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment. FTA, "Hirsch suggested that, for physicists, a value for h of about 10–12 might be a useful guideline for tenure decisions..." Now, from what I can see, she's actually not yet tenured and her h-index does not (yet) indicate that she should be included.  It's not even particularly high by the standards of that university.  Taking an example of a professor I know there, **** ****** is tenured, has an h-index of 20, and has top citations of 143, 130, 98, 71, 46.  No one would argue that he needs to be included in Wikipedia.  He's not notable.  There's nothing particularly meaningful about the numbers you cite.  Bueller 007 (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW Bueller, Colleen is a she not a he, and is most definitely tenured. FYI: Associate Professor == tenured, Assistant Professor == not (yet) tenured. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note also looking at the Chemistry Prof that Bueller argues does not need to be included in Wikipedia, while he might not "need to be in Wikipedia" would be an obvious AfD keep as he clearly passes WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Change to neutral, per below. While she is published, I can find no reviews of her work indicating notability for her at this stage in her career. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I created the stub as an extension of seeing her name linked in red on Ethology (which has since been removed by Bueller 007 immediately before suggesting it for deletion). It will likely remain a stub and not significantly notable for some time as wildlife behaviour is a considerably "closed" and eclectic field compared to more media or internet-exposed topics like physics, medical, pop culture and politics, and thus receives significantly less attention or consideration of importance in general communities such as wikipedia. That said, despite having fewer publications to her name than most professors with greater experience, as an individual expert in her area, she is a member of various committees for professional organizations within the field of animal behaviour and is consulted by regional and metropolitan councils and media on topics of wildlife movement and behaviour in the south-central region of Alberta, especially regarding her focus topic of human-animal conflict involving fauna in urban areas and national parks. I would like to comment that even other regionally notable researchers in the field of wildlife, however, still do not have articles and this may form, and be formed from, a potential bias in recognition or interest. It is an interesting dichotomy that even obscure cartoon characters and bands are included as content. While the possibility that such encyclopedic content is too niche to be in regular usefulness on wikipedia - and I have no problems with it being dropped - "average university professor" is a poor, subjective and over-general reason to dismiss a person as non-notable. Cite-count is also unreliable as citations are inherently biased on the time since publication and the popularity and size of a field. Exzakin (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, here is popular press coverage of one of Cassidy St. Clair's projects in Telegraph.co.uk and nytimes.com (full disclosure, I'm on the supervisory committee of the student doing this work) Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to be the same article by Frey reprinted, and she is not the focus of the article. That said, a Telegraph/NYT cite is a pretty significant mention. I also have a real problem with the nominator removing the link to her from the Ethology article as "non-notable" before the community has had a chance to decide. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. What is she known for? If the article cannot tie a topic into a wider context, what is the point? This is an encyclopedia, not a repository for articles on associate professors who have some citations. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete on the ground of WP:PROF, because I cannot find significant contributions in her field that would meet this requirement. This is tentative as I'll easily sway towards keeping if such evidence can be shown to me. Tavix | Talk  22:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. While the Google scholar results are not bad, they're not strong enough to convince me that she passes WP:PROF #1 — I agree with Exzakin's "Cite-count is also unreliable" but to me that means we shouldn't rely on it to argue for a pass in cases like this where it's not clear-cut. I don't think the Telegraph/NYT piece's coverage (of her specifically) is nontrivial enough for WP:GNG, and it's only one piece (the wording is the same despite being in two different major papers). And I don't see any other reason to keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per David Eppstein. To insert my more general 2 cents, "not more notable than the average professor." Ray  Talk 16:54, 20 November 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.