Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Nichols


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Margaret Nichols

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of meeting notability guidelines. — James Cantor (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. While the article is currently of poor quality, she is cited in several independent news sources and passes WP:prof. - Sweet Nightmares  16:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets the standards of WP:PROF and seems to be notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Being quoted in news sources (which are not themselves about the BLP) does not typically count as "significant coverage" about the BLP. Moreover, it is not clear which WP:PROF criterion she might meet.  The BLP subject is not a professor (she is a business person running a clinic),
 * There is no evidence of significant impact in her field (1),
 * No national/international awards (2),
 * She has not been elected to any high honour (3),
 * There is no evidence of any association with higher education (4),
 * She is not a professor, nevermind the holder of a named chair (5) or post such as dean or provost (6),
 * There is no evidence of substantial impact outside academia related her to field (7),
 * She has never been a journal editor (8),
 * She is not in any field of literature (9).
 * So, despite the claim that she meets WP:PROF, no one has presented any evidence for how.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A google scholar search show that the two most cited works by her have been cited 73 and 43 times, with other works cited in the 20s and teens. While I am no expert in Lesbian/bisexual women's psychotherapy, I'm willing to assume that it is not the most popular field to publish in.  A citation rate of 73 and 43 might seem low for the hard sciences, but in her specific area of research it appears that she meets criteria 1.  I would argue that she may also satisfy criteria 7, as all of her positions have been non-academic, and since her area of expertise is therapy, it seems that her academic capacity very much relates to the work that she does on the ground.  While I think criteria 1 is more easily met, I do think that the two of these combined means that she does meet the criteria for notability for academics. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Number of citations is not given as a criterion in PROF, but I believe you are on exactly the right track. The number you appear at the beginning to calculate is what is called the h-index, which is indeed often taken a measure of impact (for better or for worse).  However, Nichols' h-index is somewhere around that of an assistant professor, not at all equivalent to the level of accomplishment (dean, provost, international awards, etc.) indicated by the criteria.— James Cantor (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the h-index. I'm aware of it, and the calculators I have used in the past seem to be having some issues with processing her (similar name to other scholars that show up in the Google Scholar results) so I went off the top citation articles from her that I found.  While you are right that the guidelines do not mention citations, the point of guidelines is that they are not robotic and leave room for human judgement.  Her results seem to be on the high end of other articles on related subjest (which seem to median in the 30s) and as such, I feel that as a whole she has probably satisfied criteria 1.  She also seems to have fulfilled criteria 7 of WP:PROF with her non-academic work.  As others have pointed out, independent verifiable sources are readily available, and it appears to me that she also fulfills WP:GNG.  You seem not to agree with this assessment, which is perfectly okay, but I believe that the guidelines have been met.  Additionally, it is important to note that both WP:GNG and WP:BAND are guidelines, not policies.  While they should be followed generally, through the process of AfD, editors may determine that an article is still notable, even if it does not necessarily fit 100% within the guidelines.  While I feel that it does, it appears that a consensus here is emerging that the article is about a notable subject, so a constant appeal back to your interpretation of the guidelines might not be the best way of going about things.  Again, I feel that these article do in fact meet the guidelines, but even if my judgement on this is wrong, the whole of the discussion here has convinced me that the subject is notable and should be included, which is a perfectly acceptable thing to happen in an AfD discussion, TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per the keep votes above. James Cantor should have informed Jokestress of this AfD, since she created the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. A "vote" to keep should be based on editing guidelines, not based circularly on other people's votes, which themselves lack any evidence relevant to the editing guidelines. If I may pose the question directly (again): Which of the 9 PROF criteria (all listed above) is it that folks think Nichols meets, and what's the evidence that she does? — James Cantor (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll vote however I like, thanks. It seems reasonable that someone mentioned in numerous reliable sources should be considered notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. FKC is indeed free to believe that to be a reasonable standard. But it is not the standard in GNG, PROF, or any other relevant guideline currently on WP.— James Cantor (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sportfan5000 has convincingly addressed the CNG issue below. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Convincing" generally means that someone who didn't believe X came to believe X. Thus far, however, we have only people who already believed X still believing X (and still providing no evidence of the belief).  That's not "convincing."  That's advertising.  The repeated inability of multiple editors to answer even the most basic request for even a single cite to support the claim is in itself rather troublesome.— James Cantor (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is "troublesome", but wouldn't it also be "troublesome" to you that apparently not one editor agrees with you that the article should be deleted? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus is what it is, and the policies are what they are. If I were greatly outnumbered and had no policy or precedent to back my opinion, I would indeed be likely to be merely disrupting the page.  However, one person with evidence counts much more than any number of people with none, and I have gone through each of the relevant criteria one by one showing how they apply.  No one (until TonyBallioni) has even tried to follow policy or present any evidence no matter how many times asked.  (That said, I have no illusions that many admins close AfDs just after a cursory look at the number of "votes" rather than any evaluation of the arguments and evidence.)— James Cantor (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I very much doubt that this article will be deleted if you are the only participant in the AfD to back deletion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment just to point out here since my reply to James Cantor was fairly long, and I think it relevant to this discussion: WP:GNG and WP:BAND are guidelines, not policies. While policies should always be followed, there can be exceptions to guidelines if the consensus at AfD supports it. While the consensus here seems to be that the guidelines have been satisfied, even if James Cantor is right and they have not, it seems that a consensus is evolving to determine that she should be included, and that is an acceptable result of an AfD even if it is not 100% in line with the guidelines. If you want a policy to back it up, WP:GUIDELINE says this, and you could even invoke WP:IAR, though I don't think it necessary. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets the GNG, I easily found numerous sources when searching on her name and some of the institutions she help create or was a part of. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just being mentioned or quoted does not establish notability. As per GNG, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail...Significant coverage is more than a passing mention.  I've searched rather extensively (in both the academic literature and regular google search) and found no article directly about her.  Which sources is it exactly that provides significant coverage?— James Cantor (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See the GNG - ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I feel the many articles that do discuss her add up to meet GNG, so that original research is not needed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your feeling. However, any good editor will also appreciate my request (how many times now?) to actually cite some of them?— James Cantor (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, citing my feelings then suggesting I'm not a good editor, very persuasive.


 * Comment Probably the best approach is PROF #7 "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." This can be seen in a Google Books search ("Margaret Nichols" sex). Also Google News (with archive i.e. Search Tools->Any Time->Archive), found some like Chicago Times, WaPo, Orlando Sentinel, WaPo. These are free searches but I'm sure there are more in the Gale/Ebsco/ProQuest/NewsBank commercial databases which I can access. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2013 (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.