Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tia Keyes


 * 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 defaulting to Keep, DGG's research has persuaded some that he meets the relevant guideline but others remain unconvinced that he does. Davewild (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Tia Keyes

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

non-notable academic; no evidence of independent coverage, let alone substantial (as required per WP:BIO). Fails WP:PROF. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Paste (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2008

(UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as above; if after nearly 2 years notability can't be asserted and backed up, then it likely never will be. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Per DGG's research, it seems notability of sorts exist, though I am unsure whether given publications are sufficient enough for a good claim of article inclusion, hence I withdraw my delete vote and take a neutral stance. I'm not saying I think it should be kept, but merely that my vote for deletion is no longer as strong, and I lack adaquate knowledge to give any credible opinion. Maybe the next step would be to properly integrate such publications into the article rather than just link or barely reference them. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Per DGG's research, it seems notability of sorts exist, though I am unsure whether given publications are sufficient enough for a good claim of article inclusion, hence I withdraw my delete vote and take a neutral stance. I'm not saying I think it should be kept, but merely that my vote for deletion is no longer as strong, and I lack adaquate knowledge to give any credible opinion. Maybe the next step would be to properly integrate such publications into the article rather than just link or barely reference them. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article makes no claim of notability. Check of CV on University Website and of citations on Google Scholar suggest a typical academic publication record, not "significant" and "well-known" academic work as required for WP:PROF. BRMo (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional comment – I remain unpersuaded by DGG's findings. Despite the recent edits, the article's lede still fails to claim notability. Her 56 published articles may meet the alternative standard mentioned in WP:PROF of "more notable than the average college instructor/professor," but that standard is not universally accepted and I personally disagree with it. If this article is to be kept, I'd like someone to explain in word (not in counts of publications or citations) why they think her work is significant, and also add that explanation to the article's lede.  BRMo (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per BRMo. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination and per BRMo's comments. Clearly fails WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing to Unsure per DGG's comments. I'd like to hear more about citation rates in physical chemistry. It sounds a bit strange to me that the number of publications of Keyes is quite high (54), while the citation rates appear somewhat low. Nsk92 (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete . Lecturer, not professor, with only 2 co-authored publications above 10 citations in a Google Scholar search (30 & 25) . The single book has only a few citations. I see no evidence that the subject yet meets WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing to Weak keep, per DGG's research. I think 50 co-authored papers with only a handful having citations above 20 is fairly borderline, particularly for someone who is still at the lecturer level, but I concede that I don't have a great handle on citation frequency in physical/inorganic chemistry, and I can't see that the current article (with DGG's additions) is harming the encyclopedia. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per BRMo. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep  Doing the search in Web of Science,  there are 54 peer reviewed papers, of which the highest have counts of 44, 39, 39, 35, and 24 respectively. 4 of these 6 were in Journals published by the American Chemical Society, the most prestigious in the subject. . This is sufficient for notability--physical chemistry is not a field with a very high density of citations.   Google Scholar should not be relied on to find all references., especially for papers published before 2000, and especially for work in chemistry Many papers from ACS publications have in the past not been included there do to lack of agreement between ACS and ISI. The results here are a clear demonstrations of it.  I will do a limited number of WoS searches if no one else interested  has it  available. I have added her most cited papers to the article. DGG (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you add a list of the individual highly cited papers, either here or in the article? I didn't realise that ACS journals didn't appear in Google Scholar, and agree that they are the most prestigious in the field. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide some context — for example, among tenured physical chemists at research universities who have been publishing for about 15 years, would her publication record place her among the top 5 percent? 20 percent? 50 percent? Also, the article's text is pretty generic and doesn't establish that her work is notable. (In other words, similar text could be written about most academics, with the exception of the publication count—which shouldn't be the sole evidence of notability.) Would it be possible to add a sentence or two summarizing parts of her work that are "significant" or "well known"? — BRMo (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG. Note also that Lecturer in the Isles includes most people who in America would be called Professor.  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think your interpretation of the Lecturer position is correct. From what I know about the British/Irish academic system, they have three types of positions: Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Reader, Professor. My understanding is that Lecturer roughly corresponds to Assistant Professor in the U.S. plus a little higher (probably cutting into the Associate Professor range a bit), while Professor in the British system generally means something higher than Full Professor in the U.S, with Reader being somewhere in between. Nsk92 (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any Irish Universities having a "Reader" grade of academic staff. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right! I thought that Britain and Ireland have the same academic rank system (Britain does have Readers), but I was wrong about that. I just looked up Reader (academic rank) and only UK, Australia and New Zealand are mentioned as using it. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, Reader is not universal even among UK universities. Many would just use Post-doc, Lecturer, Professor, Head of Department. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Per above posts. -- Shark face  217  02:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the rationale provided by DGG, subject appears to be notable within their field. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, would appear to meet the WP:PROF notability guidelines, particularly #4. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:20, 25 March 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.