Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Arbour


 * 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.  A  Train talk 22:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Victoria Arbour

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable academic who does not meet WP:PROF. References provided are entirely to her own articles or to articles in alumni magazines etc. Perhaps some day, but for now, WP:TOOSOON. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Arbour's work has been noted in secondary sources, such as:
 * The Atlantic: "Arbour has been studying ankylosaurs for a decade, and in one of her first studies, she showed that they could indeed destroy shins. By using medical scanners to create three-dimensional computer models of the tail clubs, and putting these through digital crash-tests, she showed that they are formidable weapons. The tails were sturdy enough to swing the clubs, and the largest knobs would have hit with enough force to break bone."
 * Smithsonian Magazine", etc.
 * This is indicative of notability, so it's a keep for me on the balance of things. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And my own work has been featured in New Scientist, and I've been interviewed for newspaper articles, etc. That's not evidence of my being any more notable than an average prof; an *average* academic will get some media coverage. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What category of notability do you claim is passed by two brief mentions in popular science magazines? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC).
 * WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The mentions of Arbour in those articles are just name dropping of the interviewee who is the source of information on the topic being reports. The articles contain zero commentary on Arbour.  Thus, they are just "brief mentions".  Arbours publications are worthy reliable sources, but that's it.  Arbour has not become the topic of interest of any paragraph of any article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:Prof. Off to a good start with citations but not there yet. WP:Too soon, wait a few years. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC).
 * Comment -- As someone with a deep interest in dinosaur palaeontology, I definitely feel she *should* be considered important enough - she's a leading researcher in modern work on ankylosaurs - but I regretfully say I'm not at the moment sure she passes our textbook criteria. I'll have to look further into things before coming to a conclusion on that point.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 23:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep A news search found sufficient examples of Arbour being quoted as an expert commentator that I'm satisfied WP:PROF is met. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with . Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Edits since 26 Dec by XOR&#39;easter and have improved the case for WP:GNG. The list of reliable secondary sources now includes BBC, Atlantic (x2), Reuters, CBS News, Smithsonian, Science News, and National Geographic. Additionally, her colleague Philip Currie credits her with involving the discipline in the local women in STEM initiative, and the University touts her MOOC that reaches 35,000 students. Even though her academic rank is still that of a post-doc, she is clearly a rising star. Even though she does not meet WP:PROF, she does meet WP:GNG, IMHO. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:PROF.  Subject is just a postdoc, not a proper academic anyway.  None of the statements in the lede are claims of significance.  The article is little more than a postdoc CV.  All five mainspace incoming links are just gratuitous reference-author-naming.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree that she does not meet WP:PROF, as I noted in my !vote above. Please note, however, there are 10 reliable sources that refer to her variously as "armoured dinosaur expert" (BBC); "an akylosaur specialist with the Royal Ontario Museum" (Atlantic); "paleontologist Victoria Arbour of North Carolina State University and the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences" (Reuters); "study lead author Victoria Arbour" (CBS News); "Ankylosaur expert and North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences paleontologist" (Smithsonian); "paleobiologist at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto" (Science News); "armoured-dinosaur palaeontologist at the Royal Ontario Museum" (National Geographic).
 * Further, there are three pieces that are biographical: Dalhousie University's Alumni Spotlight, the Brian Alary feature piece published on the Folio website of the University of Alberta, and the profile by Ishani Nath in the Canadian "lifestyle" magazine, Flare. These combined sources add up to WP:GNG. — Cheers! Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to those who dug up the extra sources. Unfortunately they are non-in-depth self-generated publicity about the same topic. At best WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC).
 * Having re-read WP:PROF I now agree with U|XOR&#39;easter that WP:PROF has been met by multiple non-local sources:"Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." — Cheers! Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As you quote falls short of this mark. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC).
 * Where does "a small number" cut off though? He just quoted ten.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 00:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * An important question. On the basis of precedent, citations in GS might be around 1000. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC).

Nice try, but a False equivalence. Here are the unique considerations in WP:PROF#C7:

1. "That the subject is frequently quoted..."
 * The article now cites 13 reliable sources quoting Victoria Arbour

2. "...in conventional media..."
 * Conventional media quoted account for nine of the 13 sources (BBC, twice in the Atlantic, Science News, National Geographic, Reuters, Flare, CBS News, CBC News). The remaining 4 sources may not be considered "conventional media," but if you want to know who is an expert in ankylosaurs, the Smithsonian might be a good place to ask. (The Royal Ontario Museum, University of Alberta and Dalhousie University are also not conventional media sources.)

3. "...as an academic expert in a particular area"
 * References to her in those conventional media include "armoured dinosaur expert", "an akylosaur specialist", "paleontologist" "study lead author", "Ankylosaur expert", "paleobiologist ", "armoured-dinosaur palaeontologist".

AND the following conditions "fall short of the mark"

4. A small number of quotations
 * Nine is not a small number of conventional sources, and these conventional media represent high-quality, respected journalism, known for fact-checking. As I've pointed out above, your comparison with the "precedent" number of GS citations at 1000 is clearly not a valid comparison. If it were, the only subjects who might qualify would no doubt meet other PROF criteria, such as Nobel Prize winners--and the WP:PROF#C7 criterion would be redundant/useless.

5. especially in local news media
 * All nine conventional media sources are either national or international, not local.

Cheers! Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They are mentions of the same matter so WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC).
 * The Ziapelta and tail-bone-fusion coverage is from 2015, and the Zuul coverage from 2017. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Further, her naming of the ankylosaur Zuul crurivastator is the subject of only 3 of the sources: one of the Atlantic sources, the CBC source, and the Science News piece. Zuul is also mentioned at the very end of the National Geographic source, but the subject is a new book on  Borealopelta  written by Caleb Brown, and Arbour is quoted as a reviewer of his draft book.
 * The topics of the remaining sources are related to multiple topics: her study of the ankylosaur's tail (CBS), and (Science News); her ankylosaur studies on the lack of "direct evidence of predator-prey combat" (Smithsonian); her opinion on the possibility evolution of "a ‘woolly’ tyrannosaurus or dromaeosaur relatives of Velociraptor "in a scenario suggested in a e BBC documentary; and whether an ankylosaur fossil with fish in its belly indicated it was an aquatic, carnivorous species (the second Atlantic source). Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Grand&, the article has been WP:Reference bombed making it very hard to find possible quality sources among the many sources that are just mentions. Same with your reply to me, it is hard work to find the source you  are referring to, and the result is disappointing every time.  The number of them doesn't outweigh their collective problem that they are mere mentions of the postdoc, and promotion.  Mere mentions, because the postdoc is not the subject, she is just there showcasing the dinosaurs, and the biographies are non-independent promotion of the organisation's people.  These sources, the popular articles, are what happens with the organisations PR people get hold of someone with an entertaining story, are female, and fit the organised promotion of science.  The lede makes no notability claims.  Early life and Education neither (not that a claim is to be expected there).  In career, the content of what she's studied, published, and helped name is nowhere near a GNG claim of significant coverage.  A claim is made the last paragraph, but it is non-independent promotion that must be excluded.  An affiliated writer has written a promotional story (promotional of the science, associated with Arbour), and the strong statement of significance in the last sentence is from her Doctoral Advisory.  It is all promotion, non-independent, and a great many mentions without any depth of coverage of the subject.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I concur that there were some redundant citations, and I have removed most of the primary references to her publications. I know when I am writing a bio, I try to avoid using primary sources, but I don't believe there has been intentional "reference bombing" in this piece. At any rate, the net effect on the reader is the same, whether or not the addition of more than one source, especially a primary source, is intentional or just an attempt to be thorough in providing the sources of information. So thanks for that criticism. I would just add that extended biographic coverage required for GNG is not required for WP:PROF, just multiple references showing she is considered an expert in conventional media. Cheers! Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong delete passing references are not enough to show notability. People who are low level operatives in large research teams, as postdoc fellows are, are just plain not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Being "low level operatives in large research teams" is hardly true of all postdocs. (Not everybody is LIGO or CERN, after all.) In the group where Arbour works, she is the only postdoc; there are seven PhD students and one faculty member. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On the Zuul, Zaarapelta, Crichtonpelta, Ziapelta and Dyoplosaurus papers, she is the corresponding author. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. If this BLP is deleted I would not like it to be thought that any detriment attaches to its subject. I see her as the victim of exploitation by an over-zealous PR department of her institution. She is not the first, nor will be the last, to learn that fame can be a two-edged sword. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC).
 * There is no victim.  Victoria Arbour is doing a great job, science, communication. Wikipedia doesn’t decide based on merit, but on whether independent others have written about her. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What she is doing is excellent. The problem is over-egging of minor activities by others. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC).
 * Hmm. If you type "arbour, V.M." inot WP's search engine, you will find 46 WP articles referring to her work. Over-egging by all those editors, too? Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Double counting. Those are just citations to her papers, already covered by GS, which have been argued above to be (to date) insufficient to pass WP:Prof. Also, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC).
 * The GS citation count may not be sufficient, but I will agree to disagree with you on not meeting WP:PROF, because she does satisfy WP:PROF. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2018 (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.