Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Alethea Tabor

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 delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Alethea Tabor

Dr Alethea Tabor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable academic; I considered marking this CSD for no assertion of notability, but for clarity I am bringing it here. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Boyle. Delete. bikeable (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• I refer you to the discussion that you yourself make mention of. I feel that this academic should be kept for the same reasons but I shall restate them here. All academics with a PhD will have done a unique piece of novel work. If this is not a reason for being notable I have no idea what is. The reason for being a notable academic is currently a hot topic of discussion and so cannot be relied on for reasons to be deleted. Rather if we look at the general guidelines we find that:
  "Creative professionals: scientists, academics, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals. The person has received notable awards or honors. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance."
  

So from this we can see that the academic is notable as they firstly are an academic and secondly they are seen as one of the leaders the field of lantibiotics (lanthionine based drugs). As such they surely must be considered to be important in their own field and to have created a well-known body of work that is both peer reviewed and cited.
So as you said yourself non-notable academic - I feel that here you are displaying your own ignorance and disqualifying yourself from being able to judge these academics.
We can apply this arguement independently to the majority of academics in the world today, each in their own research area will have a specialisation in which they are one of the leading figures. They may not shout their names from the rooftops but they do not need to as they shine forth with their ideas and techniques rather than their brash and vulgar claims, like the majority of popstars and celebrities. So give credit where credit is due and let us get the names of academics out there into the wider world, they will be the ones changing the world and making the future. Alex Jones - Synthesis for all 17:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm for academics. I think that Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is a perfectly reasonable guideline (it's hardly a "hot topic of discussion") and both of these fine people would seem not to meet those criteria. Not all peer-reviewed research is notable. Saying that these academics are not notable is not a slur. I have done a fair bit of research myself, but neither I nor my work deserves an entry in an encyclopedia. I think we simply have a difference of opinion about this. bikeable (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete and tagged as such. Clear failure of WP:PROF. No secondary sources attesting to notability. Bridgeplayer 20:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 20:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete no evidence of passingWP:PROF. Pete.Hurd 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Please refer to the results of a search at Google Scholar at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=AB+Tabor&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search In general, it makes sense for anyone nominating an academic's article for deletion to go a Google Scholar search and discuss the results in the AfD nomination. --Eastmain 21:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  Note, her ISI SCI h-index is a very modest 9. Pete.Hurd 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Here's a more focused version of the search proposed by Eastmain. It looks like she's a productive academic but her pub record hasn't made a wide impact yet, if one can judge her field by GS results. Pete Hurd's ISI numbers indicate the same thing. —David Eppstein 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I somewhat distrust the use of the h-index in general, because it is heavily biased towards authors producing a large number of papers rather than a few exceptional ones. So, examining the details in Web of Science, as I would do in evaluating a list of publications in the real world, there are 39 papers by AN Tabor, the most cited papers of heres have been cited 95, 58, 27, 18, 11, 11, 11, 9, times. This sounds impressive, but A/ the most cited work is from her postdoc, B/ the 2nd is a review article. On the one hand, review articles always get large numbers of citations, but then nobody is asked to write one unless reasonably well known. C/much of her work ins in synthetic organic chemistry, where it is customary to publish a number of small papers. (I've copied the results onto my userspace in case it gets deleted).

I conclude more or less the same as Peter and David, that the use of the h-index in this case does give a reasonable result. I consider it somewhat on the side of notable because of the review paper (in Tetrahedron, one of the very best Organic chemistry journals) , but it is borderline.

The rough rule of thumb used here frequently, that Assistant Professors (and their equivalents) are rarely notable, because they generally have not had time to establish themselves, also gives the same result. (On the other hand, a full professor has passed several very stringent reviews for notability by her true peers in her academic field,and all we need do is record the fact.)

comment I however note that speedy is only for use in incontestable cases of lack of notability (e.g. a beginning graduate student). An academic with published work or a permanent position--which always implies published work--is always worth the looking at. I commend Bikeable for realizing that. Probably if one is really skeptical a WP:PROD is more reasonable, because the 5 day period avoids the chance of a worthwhile article getting deleted without anyone noticing. And another test that does not make sense to me is that someone has to be more notable than oneself. I've seen that argument used here by distinguished professors who think that only the top prize-winners in the field are worth mentioning. There actually are many over-modest academics)DGG 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for the reasons given above by DGG. However, I would point out that "Reader" in a UK University is not equivalent to Assistant Professor in the US in any sense. It is equivalent to someone recently promoted to Full Professor, but not to a named or distinguished chair. It is awarded on the basis of research and is on the same pay scale as Senior Lecturer (SL). At one time, there was a limit of the number of SLs or above in a university to 30% of the total of all academic staff. "Lecturer" was considered the career grade and many people retired as Lecturers. I am not sure whether that has changed. --Bduke 00:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Who's-who entry without assertion of encyclopedic notability. Academics are not notable ex officio, and no evidence that Dr Tabor stands out among her peers has been offered. Not, from what I can tell, a PI or chair. ~ trialsanderrors 20:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Undoubtedly a productive academic but writing papers is a normal part of her day job. No secondary sources saying that she has any particular notability nor endorsing any of her papers as outstanding. It should be noted that there has been a huge expansion in the number of universities in the UK in recent years and consequently the Chairs available; every technical college is now a university so someone who is not a full professor has work to do to demonstrate notability and she hasn't. BlueValour 15:50, 24 March 2007 (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.