Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cal Horton

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. Owen× ☎ 19:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Horton

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Research fellow at Oxford Brookes, not reaching WP:NACADEMIC; Scopus publication output is consistent with their career stage. Has appeared in the media (including podcasts) as an expert with others, but this dosn't seem sufficient for independent notability (notability isn't inherited). Klbrain (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes they do pass WP:NACADEMIC with many highly cited papers and advancing research in a dramatically under-researched field, which is why they also have been cited by several newspapers (actually just to double check, found another two now that I've added to the article, so this also strengthens the WP:GNG case), despite their age in the field. They especially got a lot of recent attention as a result of their critique paper on the Cass Review. They are an expert themself on transgender studies, which is why they have been invited to talk as an expert on various podcasts, and as the article said, including them solo in this deep-dive on Social Transition, Puberty Blockers and the Cass Review, so I don't know what the stab about inherited notability is there. Im trying not to get upset anymore, but the amount of time I've had to come and defend women and non-binary people at AfD is really apparent of how alive the gender bias on Wikipedia still is. Raladic (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum, should the consensus below end up with deletion, since the article was AfD'd as part of NPP of a new article, I request per WP:ATD-I, that the article be moved into draft space (main draft, or alternatively back to my user space where I drafted it) instead, since so far it seems from the 3 delete votes below that it may be more a case of WP:TOSOON with potential rather than outright non-notability. Raladic (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Raladic (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Raladic (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above - their many cited papers (that are cited by several newspapers and on Wikipedia itself) shows that they pass GNG and NACADEMIC. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this fresh PhD with a handful of citations in what I believe to be a mid to high citation field. GNG is plausible, but I didn't find substantial coverage of the subject in the news -- the ABC piece cited does not mention them, and publishing an opinion piece in SciAm does not contribute so much to notability. Will follow in case better evidence of notability arises. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Early-career researcher with a citation record to match their position; not enough citations for WP:PROF#C1 and no other claim to notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed with the nominator. Scopus and Google scholar do not indicate high citations. Note I have removed the VIAF and LCCN ids from the wikidata record as these appear to be a different Calvin Horton who worked on pay plans in 1967/1972 [1]. ResonantDis_tortion 19:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. notability not yet attained. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, too soon. The statements above that they are highly cited does not verify, Google Scholar shows an h-factor of 10 which is far too small. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The number of citations is not enough to satisfy WP:NPROF and the sources I could find on Google (e.g., podcast interviews) were not independent and thus do not satisfy WP:GNG. I suspect in the future the subject might be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but right now I do not see it. Malinaccier (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2024 (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.