Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tia Keyes (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tia Keyes

edit
AfDs for this article:
Tia Keyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A previous no consensus keep, this run-of-the-mill associate prof at Dublin City University fails all nine points in WP:PROF. Her h-index is about 10. She seems to study ruthenium complexes; a Google Scholar search by that reveals many papers with much higher citation numbers. She is a coauthor on a single book. Her coauthors have much higher citation numbers; [1], [2]. Abductive (reasoning) 09:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the cited sources indicate she is now a full professor. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment I think you might find that there is often a substantial delay in updating different bits of websites - here http://www.dcu.ie/info/staff_member.php?id_no=1002 I think it says Prof. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
So we have to keep this article on faith that you are right and her university page is wrong? Give her a call and ask her. Abductive (reasoning) 20:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - of course you are correct but I think it might be a bit important as far as establishing notability. It does seem to influence people in their voting in these debates and promotion to professorship is often because someone has done something judged "notable" as viewed by a university. DCU clearly respects Prof Keyes and her work. The nominator for deletion mentioned "run-of-the-mill associate prof" which I think is incorrect, and has a slightly, to my mind any way, derogatory tone, and this should be corrected as it is likely to mislead the debate. I will look for more evidence of impact. But the case for retention seems to me to improved rather than diminished since the last attempt to delete the article. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)) PS: Nice to see you back Crusio[reply]
  • Question: Is her recent work - the work of "Tia Keyes and colleagues at Dublin City University" - in Chem Comm evidence of notability as this publication, published by the RSC, "contains communications (short descriptions of new work requiring rapid publication) of significant work from across the chemical sciences"? (Msrasnw (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. Editors should be aware that "Professor" means something different (and more significant) outside the USA. In the British system, and systems derived from it, ordinary tenured academics are called "Lecturer" rather than "Professor." Tia Keyes seems to be an "Associate Professor", which means something like "Assistant Chair" in US-speak. However, GS gives her h-index as 11, a citation level at which we've both accepted and rejected articles in the past (depending on the field). -- Radagast3 (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to her university bio, though generally called "Professor," Prof. Keyes is in fact an Associate Professor (which, in the Irish system, is the step just under Department Chair). However, this of itself doesn't make for notability: see WP:PROF. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about figures for the H index: I am not sure about our use - or indeed the calculation - of the H-index but looking on Web of Science (Results here: User:Msrasnw/TiaKeyes) if I have calculated correctly (which I might not have done) does the H-index come out at 15-16 rather than the 10-11 in the above comments - and would this help with retention? (Also there seem to be 82 papers) Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, it would help, although one notes that there are no single-author papers. The 10-11 came from GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Our esteemed collegue DGG argued last time this was up for deletion that "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." Is this accepted and should we then be using figures like 82 peer reviewed papers, of which the highest have counts of 56, 47, 43, 37, and 28 respectively? "Some of these 6 were in Journals published by the American Chemical Society, the most prestigious in the subject." and "This is sufficient for notability--physical chemistry is not a field with a very high density of citations. The results here are a clear demonstrations of it." Any thoughts (Msrasnw (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
That was then; GS now finds more papers, including American Chemical Society publications. I am happy to concede that 16 is the appropriate h-index (assuming all the papers you found had Keyes as a co-author, which isn't clear from your list), but in a field where many papers have a quite a few authors, this is not a very high h-index and, in my view, not quite enough to meet WP:PROF #1. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, GS now includes ACS journals. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Above we have a judgment "Subject is heading for notability but is not quite there yet". A judgement which others seem to be following. Was this on the basis of the H-index of 10 and "run-of-the-mill associate prof" .... as per the nomination? The h-index seems to be 16 which seems to me substantially higher. If this is not enough do we have a target figure in mind? Is it 17 or 20 ? Is physical chemistry "a field with a very high density of citations"? And the "run-of-the-mill associate prof" is not a true reflection of her post, if in the Irish system this post is treated as a Professorship and just one step under Department Chair. I suspect that if the figure of 16 and the true nature of her post had been reported at the start before judgments were made then this would have not got so far - and it is well known that there is path dependency in such matters that makes it difficult for most people to reverse judgments. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
As several people have pointed out above, her rank, professorial or otherwise, is of no relevance here. As to h-index, my personal threshold would be around 20 in a field where many papers have a quite a few authors. More generally, however, berating the other participants in the discussion might not be the best way to argue for this article's retention. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jolly sorry for my poor tone - we all have our own views - and mine is that I think that Afd is far too hard on many academics and that deleting peoples' work is something which should be done very carefully. I often don't see that care has been taken and there are often inaccuracies (which I am all too prone to too) which don't seem to get corrected. I don't see how our encyclopedia is improved by many of these deletions (and efforts to prove notability). I might be alone in this view but at least it is I think helpful to have it expressed but am sorry if I have expressed it too forcefully and with anger. Best wishes to all and sorry again. (Msrasnw (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
If you disagree with Wikipedia's notability policy, this is not the place to debate it. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing here about policy only interpretations of policy in this case and lack of care by those pushing for deletions. (Msrasnw (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • An extra important reference: I was just checking the refs - and it seems that this one: Fibre optic oxygen sensor based on fluorescence quenching of evanescent-wave excited ruthenium complexes in sol-gel derived porous coatings, by MacCraith, B.D., McDonagh, C.M., O'Keeffe, G., Keyes, E.T., Vos, J.G., O'Kelly, B., McGilp, J.F. 1993 The Analyst 4 (118), pp. 385-388 which has a citation score of 135 was not included in the Web of Science, Google Scholar or Scopus lists as the author is listed as Keyes, E.T. rather the Keyes, T.E.. This would seem to me her most cited paper by far and we missed it. I doubt whether this will change anything much but just include it for future reference. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
That's because E.T. Keyes (Emmetine T. Keyes) is a different person. Please be more careful in the data you provide here: now I no longer trust the h-index you gave us earlier. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? Tia E Keyes DCU and Emmetine T. Keyes DCU both writing on the same topic with the same co-author and more importantly our Tia E Keyes lists this publication as her publication on her website in the bibliography there [4] - which would indicate that it was hers. Please have a really close check of this - and don't worry about your admonishing me. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)) PS: I would like to be trusted but I provided the list of refs with their citation counts for my estimation of the h-index in the link above.[reply]
If "Tia E Keyes" and "Emmetine T. Keyes" are the same person, then I apologise; I've wronged you and jumped to an unjustified conclusion, and the paper is by the subject. However, I don't think it actually changes the h-index, does it? -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries an easy mistake to make - no I don't think it changes the h-index (which is in itself an interesting and problematic aspect of the measure). But I think it will help when it comes to redoing the article next time if it is deleted because it will get counted by those who like the metrics. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)) ps: here is her bibliography cut and pasted (with the ET Keyes ref emboldened) from the asp lnk which keeps going down on her website User:Msrasnw/KeyesRefshomepage. PPS The Web of Science includes a total number of citations which is 948 and h-index 16.[reply]
I had hoped it was OK to ask editors involved in an Afd to have another look if new information was made available - sorry to have bothered you I didn't mean to badger you and won't do so again (and am not sure about the relevance or issue with the need for refs on Leslie Barringer's books) best wishes anyway :).(Msrasnw (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
It was inappropriate, and also unnecessary: editors do continue to monitor these pages, and will change their !vote if significant new information appears. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I'll not do this again. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see the case for WP:PROF. Which is to say, this looks to me like the academic equivalent of an A7 speedy deletion (I'm not arguing that this should be speedied, only that it's similar) in that despite the length of the article I don't see anything in it that I can point to as a reason she's significant. There are some awards from her own university, but they're not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tia_Keyes_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1087615512"