Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Corwin


 * 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) Tol &#124; Talk &#124; Contribs 21:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

David Corwin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not appear to pass WP:NPROF. The Jane Doe case may be notable but I do not think this is enough to convey notability to David Corwin per WP:ONEEVENT. Also the article is written like a resume and would need to be completely rewritten if kept. CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Google Scholar shows reasonably well cited papers. What I don't know is whether the citation numbers are significant. If they are then I think they confer notability on him. An editor like may well have good information for this discussion  Fiddle   Faddle  15:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, that is a good point. If an expert can verify that these citation numbers are significant then I will withdraw the nomination. CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Corwin straddles academia, clinical practice, and forensic expert, but in my opinion he passes on GNG and possibly NACADEMIC-6 and 7 as well. Corwin founded and headed ASPAC: American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, and headed AVA and NHCVA as well. Some of his research work has been cited highly. However, Corwin's impact on child abuse extends beyond academia as evidenced by coverage in the media: New Yorker, The Guardian, and CBC, LA Times, as well as coverage in books such as: Remembering our Childhood: How Memory Betrays Us, By Karl Sabbagh.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 16:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I checked the citations of the 1993 paper, and although 80 citations in 28 years isn't wonderful it's quite respectable, and a Hirsch (h) index of 46 isn't wonderful either, but again, it's quite respectable. (In both cases I'm speaking from the point of view of biochemistry: I can't comment on his field.) There are clearly people who are likely to look him up on Wikipedia, so yes, he's "notable". Athel cb (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Athel cb, where are you getting those numbers?? An h-index of 46 (which is generally really good) would mean 46 papers with at least 46 citations, but he's only written 26 papers indexed by Scopus... JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't use Scopus, because I was already a Web of Science addict before I encountered Scopus. Anyway, my numbers come from Web of Science. Athel cb (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, can you link the author record number (at the end of the url) you're using? The one I got for him (1099506) is actually a mishmash of different people, but still only gives him 44 citations and an h-index of 12. JoelleJay (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I fear you're right, and I wasn't careful enough, as I didn't think that Corwin D would be such a common name, and my list included lots of people who were clearly not him. I'll try to be more careful next time. Athel cb (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think he definitely meets notability criteria. Bebopjohnson (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. I looked at the Scopus metrics for Dr. Corwin and all 108 of his coauthors who have more than 5 papers.
 * Total citations: average: 3102, median: 1602, Corwin: 1208.
 * Total papers: avg: 71, med: 40, C: 26.
 * h-index: avg: 22, med: 17, C: 16.
 * Top 5 highest citations: 1st: avg: 500, med: 311, C: 264. 2nd: avg: 254, med: 175, C: 174. 3rd: avg: 193, med: 141, C: 115. 4th: avg: 158, med: 101, C: 89. 5th: avg: 130, med: 88, C: 77.
 * If I restrict this to the 32 coauthors who published 2 or more papers with him (so, people who will have greater similarity in their research focus), these are the metrics: TC: avg: 2233, med: 1262. TP: 50, 42. h-index: 20, 16. Top 5 papers: 1: 339, 264. 2: 170, 171. 3: 129, 126. 4: 109, 89. 5: 98, 77.
 * Based on these data I would say he does not pass NPROF C1, as his impact (as measured in citations) is not clearly above (or even close to equal to) that of the average professor in his subfield. Note also that my cut-off of 5 papers is very low so these comparisons comprise mostly non-professors. If I was to restrict analysis to coauthors who held professorships or had established research leadership I assume the averages/medians would be much higher. However, I haven't looked into his possible qualifications for other NPROF criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. He fails WP:NPROF, but passes WP:GNG based on his coverage in the media and involvement with a high profile case. --hroest 20:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I reviewed the media coverage and it does seem sustained and non-trivial, even if limited to the one topic. JoelleJay (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. meets WP:GNG.Webmaster862 (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable as WP:PROF-- a first approach to using the standard is simply to look for there being 2 or more highly cited papers. From Google Scholar there is only 1--- 300 cites for the review paper that's no. 1 in the list. Nothing else over 88. Scopus cites should be about 1/2 that. That's not enough. I don't think he qualifies as GNG, because the notability is only about the case.  DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * DGG, I would normally agree re: BLP1E, but it does seem the case garnered coverage both at the time and in several subsequent follow-up articles many years later. He's always mentioned as the person responsible for the study, and the specifics of his involvement are generally detailed, which makes me lean toward this being a case of made a significant discovery ... [the] contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. It's on the edge for sure, especially since the coverage is less from academic sources and more from continuing lay interest (and lay coverage of academic interest). I'd be willing to reconsider my !vote. JoelleJay (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've noticed the related articles. I think we might be dealing with a WP:Walled Garden, where the articles are being used to support each other DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it some more, I would support a redirect to the Jane Doe case, unless SIGCOV more directly addressing Corwin himself is uncovered. JoelleJay (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, for the reasons given to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2021 (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.