Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Killick

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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Killick

Kate Killick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was deprodded without improvement, and a rather bizarre accusation. Does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete Sources from Google Scholar:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cmi.12161

https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-12-611

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2014.00422/full

The GNGs are just that, guidelines. The subject of this article has received over 150 citations from her work, I would consider this notable significant coverage from reliable sources, as seen above.

I would like the nominator to explain how they landed on this page? Women in Red is an important opportunity for the Wiki community. I doubt very much that this article would be nominated for deletion if the subject was male. comment added by Schlossbergfes (talk • contribs)

The editor of: Cell Signaling in Host–Pathogen Interactions: The Host Point of View, Diana Bahia independtly acknowledged Dr Killick for contributions to this work, this further supports notability.Schlossbergfes (talk

This article featured in the

Irish Times involved Dr Killick and her colleagues fight for more funding for the sciences.^[1] Schlossbergfes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

It is true that

talk) 17:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Citation count is light for
  WP:TOOSOON. Originator of the article seems to be mistaken about notability requirements, saying in the history "author is published, clearly passing the criteria for an article". And 150 citations wouldn't be enough in math (an especially low citation field), let alone biology. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: The three Google Scholar sources posted above are just links to the paper. The Irish Times reference is an opinion piece of which Killick's name is only mentioned once among many, many other names. I cannot locate any
  notability. On another note, and this may not belong here, I do not appreciate User:Schlossbergfes accusations that this is part of some sexist conspiracy to remove women from Wikipedia. --Darth Mike^(talk) 16:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Unless you can find a threshold with an exact number, 150 citations are notable. This meets Criteria 1, and must remain as an article. Schlossbergfes (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend that the editors for removal read the article

Gender Bias on Wikipedia.Schlossbergfes (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per Russ Woodroofe. I think part of the problem here is that
  too soon for an article on this topic. Ajpolino (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Sadly, fails
  WP:TOOSOON. If there are articles on male scientists of a similar early career stage, they should be nominated for deletion. The creating editor seems to misunderstand the level of notability required for academics - just being published is not enough. PamD 17:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, pace
  WP:CANVASing  :) ——SN54129 17:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• You can put as many back to back adjectives in front of your threshold, but as long as there is a number in concrete, it can subjectively be viewed as being met. In an environment where your editors are extremely, highly, superduperly male, it gives more weight to the female articles who actually pass the test. It is my opinion that 150 associations for a female scientist is meeting the C1 criteria. Schlossbergfes (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete This article has been active for months and was not taken down, I'm questioning the timing of this deletion request. Just because other articles may not be added to Wikipedia, doesn't mean that this one shouldn't. One must use critical thinking, not notable guidelines.Dafteire (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Err.
  notability guideines, not "critical thinking". An unfortunate state of affairs, perhaps, but there it is. ——SN54129 18:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • No you're right, why would we use critical thinking, silly me.Dafteire (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're right, the artice will be kept. ——SN54129 19:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sometimes new articles just don't get noticed. Or nobody who sees them wants to go through the trouble of starting a deletion discussion. That in and of itself isn't an argument for keeping them.
    talk) 17:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Yes, but the article has been viewed 164 times, while not a large sum, it should be noted that over a hundred views before it was flagged. Maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate, but there is a level of prestige to the works listed, and the removal argument is only citing standardisation as their logic.Dafteire (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

Ashland Skate Park - 3 men and a skate park. PamD 17:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per
  WP:TOOSOON. She has respectable citation counts for a postdoc, but postdocs (and assistant professors and the UK/Irish equivalents) are usually too early in their career to have attracted enough attention to their works for academic notability, and Killick does not appear to be an exception to this general rule. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Off to a good start but far
  WP:Prof. I note that there has been canvassing for this AfD, which drew my attention to it: I otherwise might not have noticed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete As others have set out in detail, fails
  WP:TOOSOON. Edwardx (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep To the editor who will most likely remove this article from Wikipedia: you are silencing a scientist because of notability. Science has no room for celebrity; furthermore, their research is not art, but fact. The lowly 'deletists' above are vultures that never had the chance to actually make a difference in life, and as such, are altering the course of fact. Please know, as soon as you click this page out of existence, you are smothering true discovery. I hope you feel shame for you sexist suffocation.Dafteire (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Strike dupe vote by Drafteire.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please
    talk) 18:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete - Fails
  WP:NPROF. Spleodrach (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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.