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 keep. Kurykh (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Brooks (astronomer)[edit]

Kate Brooks (astronomer) (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)

Article fails to meet notability requirement for persons. Subject is listed as being of note as an astronomer, subject is neither of note as defined by Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics^[1] or at this time an astronomer having left field in April 2016 ^[2]. EuryaleGorgon (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Notability is not temporary per WP:NTEMP. This [1] google scholar search and this [2] Scopus preview suggest that WP:ACADEMIC may be satisfied. I don't have access to Scopus to dig in further Gab4gab (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep scopus has Documents:58; Citations:1522 total citations by 952 documents; h-index: 24. More than enough for me. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment h-index of 24 is not particularly notable for an astronomer. Kenyon et al. (2012) ^[3] performed an analysis of h-indices of Australian astronomers (including the subject), listing top Australian Astronomers on the basis of h-index and provide a fit to the relationship between the 10-year citation rate and h-index for Australian astronomers. The subject is not listed in the names of Australian astronomers of note for their publication output in this analysis which covers the years she was primarily active. EuryaleGorgon (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kenyon article precedes years of highest citations rates for Brooks making it a poor indicator for this discussion. Gab4gab (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Stuartyeates. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Quick searches seem to indicate sufficient material for a more content in article. Aoziwe (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. GS gives an h-index of 15, but Scopus 24; odd-maybe some issue of citing astronomy (a highly cited field). Just passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak keep. I think the citation record is borderline, and she seems to have recently shifted from an academic position to an administrative one where she is not yet notable [3] but I think her double term as president of the Astronomical Society of Australia puts her over the top. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2017 (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.