Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah Charlesworth


 * 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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure). MrKIA11 (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Deborah Charlesworth

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable. Although she might be important in her field, the article's one cited source did not say anything about her. I also checked Google and there was nothing about her, just links to books or papers she has written or to universities where she has worked. Northwestgnome (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn since it seems that there are sources about her. Northwestgnome (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Being a fellow of the royal society meets WP:PROF criteria 3.  Google scholar search returns 3,820 resutls, the majority of the first 50 of which definitely have her as author.  The very first result has been cited 1130 times with many of other articles having been cited several hundred times.  Hence meets criteria 1.  I'm sure there's more as well. Dpmuk (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that merely citing the work someone has done or the honors someone has been awarded makes WP more like a Who's Who or a resume service, not that Dr. Charlesworth needs that. Northwestgnome (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per above.John Z (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —John Z (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Important in their field is notable unless the field itself is non-notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I have added a direct link to her bio. Very few scientists get a dedicated special journal issue when they retire. I have also added data on her publication activity and citation record, both are stellar. Also author of (at least) two widely used textbooks (cited in the article). Why nominate someone who is "FRS" for deletion? Should be obvious that sources for notability can be found for such a person (actually, being FRS suffices). --Crusio (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work. I am not a scientist and am not aware of the standards of notability in the field. However, WP is written for the general public.  So far this article says nothing about her as a person that would be interesting to the general reader.  Are there any secondary sources which discuss her importance? I am not trying to deny that she is important as a scientist. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources are often a problem with scientists. In this case, there's the (short) intro to the special issue of Genetical Research that was devoted to her (that's where I got her birth date). I'm afraid that's all I have been able to find (but I admit that I did not search very thoroughly, no time. I guess one could just put a stub tag on the article and let someone with the time and inclination ameliorate it). --Crusio (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case I will withdraw my nomination. Northwestgnome (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2008 (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.