Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Claxton




 * 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 no consensus. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and participation leaning closer to consensus that the subject's coverage within her narrow but important field are sufficient to keep. BD2412 T 01:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Sandra Claxton

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable researcher under basic criteria for notability. A search turned up no significant coverage other than the Sydney Morning Herald article. Notability guideline for academics does not apply because she was not a professor at an academic institution. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science,  and Australia. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Diserak (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:NACADEMIC#1b: Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. As her article notes, she identified over 70 new tardigrade species and made notable contributions to the taxonomy of the genus Minibiotus. Sydney Morning Herald article is certainly an example of significant coverage, meeting WP:SIGCOV as well. Diserak (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You've omitted the next sentence of NACADEMIC: In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. Citation to one SMH article is not a substantial number of references to academic publications of researcher other than the person in question.
 * Additionally, although the SMH article meets SIGCOV, NBASIC requires SIGCOV in multiple independent sources. As I noted, I could not find anything other than the SMH article.
 * I would recommend providing three sources that you believe establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:THREE is an essay as is not vetted by the community, so let's keep the discussion policy compliant. I'm expecting such citations due to nature of her research. Someone here would come up with such coverage if they have access to paywalled journals. I'm not a subscriber of research journals. Just created it based on the news coverage. Diserak (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's only an essay and there must be sources are not good arguments. I cited THREE because it is a short-hand way of asking you to meet your burden of verifying the claim that the article subject meets NACADEMIC. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Is the 2013 review referred to ? Because that only has 21 citations on Google Scholar, which doesn't seem a lot to me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * P.S. Don't need to be a professor for WP:NPROF to apply, given academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I missed that part of NPROF. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, her name isn't in the authors list of that paper. Does anyone have a reference for the actual review? -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:Prof not yet passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC).
 * Weak delete I don't see how WP:NPROF is met, and whilst the Sydney Morning Herald article is good, need multiple such sources to meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * weak keep, I appreciate I'm going out on a limb here, but my feeling is that by NPROF people are notable if their work is seen as significant by their peers, and in their area of research; Claxton's problem is that she worked in a small and specialised area, where high citation counts are unlikely - not that she was non-notable in that particular area. An alternative justification is that one really good newspaper article isn't quite enough (we'd like two) and her research isn't maybe quite enough, but two not-quite-enoughs add up to a pass. One day, people interested in tardigrades will be grateful to us for keeping thsi information. Elemimele (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your position and going out on a limb for this; I'm keenly aware of the issues Wikipedia has had with covering women in science. The issue here is that NPROF requires more than one RS stating that a person's contributions are significant in a field. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * keep one really really strong article will go a long way. We've got that in our article.  While the GNG asks for multiple, we've got non-independent sources and I'd claim this is a good case for IAR.  Hobit (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2024 (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.