Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Sherwin
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
— User:Tryptofish, 00:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:PROF||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)