Deletion of Chris Sherwin

Comment: per  #1 and 6
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: editors since this AfD started have improved the article such that it has better demonstrated that it meets  (the impact criterion specially), additionally the sources shown in this AfD may mean that the article passes on GNG anyway, although I think that may be more tenacious
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: not a field I'm familiar with and not a North American academic, so I'm less likely to be of use in assessing based on PROF, but I do want to point out that whatever one thinks on the GNG vs. SNG debate, the one SNG where it is abundantly clear that meeting the GNG is ''not required'' is . We just had a site-wide RfC on PROF to determine its relationship with the GNG and the overwhelming consensus was that PROF is independent of the GNG and academics don't need need to pass the GNG if they pass PROF. Arguments rooted in the GNG here don't have a policy-basis if it is determined the subject meets PROF
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: he is notable in his field, the husbandry and welfare of laboratory animals. His best known paper has been cited 380 times and numerous others are often cited, so I believe he meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: highly notable in his field, a cited published academic who has made significant contributions to his field of study, particularly in the husbandry and welfare of laboratory animals.  clearly states: {{xt|Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable.}} There is little doubt that his work meets the notability criteria in his academic field, (entomology-zoology-Biology|veterinary biology), having served as a member of the working group that drafted the scientific risk assessment which was reviewed by the Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) panel and adopted as their scientific opinion on the “Aspects of the biology and welfare of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes” published in the 2005 EFSA Journal. He also authored Chapter 25, The Husbandry and Welfare of Non-Traditional Laboratory Rodents in "The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory and Other Research Animals" (8th edition
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: Doesn't have the appearance of a memorial page, and to my knowledge the important issue in determining whether an article is a memorial page is not a subjective intent we might infer from those involved—it would seem in such a case that there would be no principled manner to distinguish between a clear memorial page and any biography of a deceased person written by someone with more than a fleeting curiosity in the subject. Rather, it is a matter of objective appearances: Whether a reasonable person would believe it's a memorial page. The timing—that this article was only created after the subject's death—is something I view as relevant, but not very persuasive. It is routine that Wikipedia articles are created, expanded, or otherwise heavily modified around the time of a subject's death. Without something more to cast this article as violating , I must conclude that this article does not violate the policy. I've seen a lot of AfDs of articles on Wikipedians recently where it's assumed that we should avoid writing about Wikipedians, or at least more strictly question their notability than with other subjects. I don't think that's quite right, at least in the absence of clear policy as regards writing about Wikipedians.{{parabr}}As to the  and  bases for deletion, I'm not convinced. The sources indicating notability in the article and discussed above are fairly persuasive. I also find the h-index to be persuasive, but neither compelling nor sufficient—I believe this is entirely consistent with . I find the arguments attacking individual sources as being irrelevant for the purposes of determining notability to be unpersuasive. The totality of the indicia of notability—that is, when viewed as a whole rather than as isolated data points—lead me to conclude that this subject meets both  and . This is even in light of the flaws that have been noted with respect to some of the sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMEMORIAL||WP:PROF||WP:GNG||WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: Citation counts are above threshold for #C1, and the two online obituaries http://mrcvs.co.uk/en/news/16210/Tribute-paid-to-Dr-Sherwin http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2017/august/dr-christopher-sherwin-1962-2017.html while not adding much to notability in themselves give us plenty of sourced material to use for our article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: as appears to meet  criteria 1. Why the article was created is not really relevant
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: I've been agonizing over this AfD, and anyone looking at my talk page can see that I have been very skeptical about the notability of this page, and I'm trying very hard not to let my personal Wiki-friendship get in the way of my objective assessment of notability as we define it here. (And all the speculation about editor motivations here does not help.) I've been doing a lot of digging, and I've come to the conclusion that the subject does indeed pass , albeit perhaps a bit narrowly. I went through every page in :Category:Veterinary scientists, and for each person in the present era I looked at what I could find of their publication metrics, assuming that those pages pass notability and that these persons are fair comparisons in terms of working in the same scholarly field. Dr. Sherwin's metrics are a little below the median for the group, but well within the range (Janine Brown scores considerably higher, but all of the others are very close). I've also critically evaluated the citations of his work that are mentioned by other editors above. I think we have to be careful there. Simply citing work by "Sherwin ''et al''." in another scholarly work does not make for demonstration of notability, because the scientific literature is full of such citations and they are typically routine. So I've disqualified most of the ones mentioned by other editors above. What I feel that I need to see are independent sources that do not merely cite Sherwin's work, but that explicitly discuss what the authors consider to be the importance and influence of his work and attribute to him by name. And we do have that. https://books.google.com/books?id=1K0qNv1jeKQC&pg=PT187&dq=%22Chris+Sherwin%22+mice&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRj6mEioPXAhXM-lQKHSAZA3MQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=%22Chris%20Sherwin%22%20mice&f=false This discussion assesses his research in the context of earlier research, and concludes that what he did moved the field forward. And even more important is the https://www.nature.com/news/2004/040209/full/news040209-6.html ''Nature'' news piece. ''Nature'' is at the very top of scientific journals, and the fact that they decided to run a report of newsworthy research findings that is entirely devoted to Sherwin's work and its importance is exactly the kind of independent notice required by . It quotes two other veterinary scientists, Donald Broom and Kathleen Mathers, as assessing Sherwin's work to be important. For me, that seals the deal as putting this page in "keep" territory. (And Atsme, please stop badgering the deletes, OK
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: This should not have been |prodded as that process is only for "uncontroversial deletion. ... PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected."  As the article was created and developed by experienced editors, opposition should have been expected
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (WP:PROD)

Comment: GS h-index of 18 (note: this may be an underestimate https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=list_works&hl=en&user=bI4EmI4AAAAJ) sufficient to pass rof#C1 in this field
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)