Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Turner (academic general practitioner)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Turner (academic general practitioner)

[edit]

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

Nikki Turner (academic general practitioner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional article on non notable physician Not everyone working with immunization is notable The references are not really to her work, its to the subjects she publicizes--and the fact that these subjects are socially valuable doesn't make for personal notability : DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete keep, she fails both WP:NPROF and GNG, membership in government committees is not enough for notability. She clearly doesnt have enough academic research to pass NPROF, see her MA profile, 900 citations in a high citation field is really not a lot. --hroest 13:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC) -- While she fails NPROF, she seems to pass WP:GNG. --hroest 16:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: I actually deprodded this article a while ago, although in context it was more of a procedural deprod (the creator had moved their sandbox into mainspace and wanted a history split). At the time, it looked notable to me, or at least enough so to make PROD inappropriate. A closer look is more ambiguous, though, and gives the impression of significant citebombing. Reasonable to take this to AfD. Vaticidalprophet 18:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I would suggest that the National advisory roles she has had in New Zealand are significant and they are not over cited but do show the importance of each body. I won't put each citation in here, they are easy to follow in the article. She was part of the team that was awarded the [1] Shorland Medal. This reference shows that the SHIVERS team had national and international recognition. Her work with the Immunisation Advisory Centre at Auckland University is recognised in [2] this link to the World Health Organisation. Her research is considerable in Google Scholar.Realitylink 21:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • She appears to meet some of these criteria:
      • The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
      • The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
      • The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
      • The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
      • The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.Realitylink (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Realitylink if any, she would only meet the last one. It is pretty clear that she did not have a measurable impact on her discipline as an academic, her Google Scholar citations are really low for her field (see the link that you provided). You say her "research is considerable" but simply publishing multiple articles in journals does not make you notable, it simply makes you an average academic. Being part of a team that gets awarded an award unfortunately is also not really enough for WP:NPROF, but I think it does add to her notability. Having a profile on a WHO site is not by itself a sign of notability. But maybe she is notable for communicating her field to the public. For GNG there would have to be independent coverage in the news, eg something about her instead of just an interview and I don't see that at the moment. --hroest 13:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hannes Röst Thanks for that. So if she meets the last criteria, I am thinking this would include her notability with IMAC, the Child Poverty Action Group and her work on equity of access to vaccines - and this is actually most of the article, with lots of references to show she was there and what she did. Am I correct in thinking that she has to only meet one of the criteria? If so, why doesn't the focus on the discussion look at what degree 'The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.' Personally, I see her academic work, research and membership of community organisations as all being on a paradigm with this, but, I am looking for ways we can explore possible retention of the page. She is clearly active and influential and this focus might work for notability.Realitylink (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Realitylink yes, if any of these criteria are fulfilled the article can be kept. Also you can look at WP:GNG which states "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so this would be major newspapers writing *about* her career. Looking through the article, I could not really find this, I found this comment by her, stuff.co calling her a "top immunisation doctor" (that would count, a RS calling her important, and Stuff (website) seems to be widely read), this calling her an "immunization expert" etc. Now, taking all these together I think this should be enough for WP:GNG. --hroest 16:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hannes Röst Thanks for that perspective. I am still thinking the article needs to be more focused on her public health work and would like the opportunity to fix this. Not sure how the other contributing editors here feel about that? Her academic work would mostly be there to support her work with IMAC and her role as an advocate for public health. I will get back with a new lede for feedback.Realitylink (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Realitylink that would be the right way to go, the article should be about what she is most known/notable for according to WP:UNDUE it would even be a mistake to focus the article on her being a physician or a researcher since that is not what she is known for. --hroest 17:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hannes Röst Yes, I can see that and I think the re-shaping is getting it into that mode. I will continue editing - for example, points listed in the infobox can be made more relevant and some of the main body of the article can be simplified. At the moment I reckon it is ok and certainly nothing there is untrue; so let's aim to keep the article alive and being improved. I get good ideas from colleagues and other authors and I am sure it will be closely watched - which is fair enough.Thanks for your input.Realitylink (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps - with a change to the title and focus in mind - a new lede could look like this:

Nicola Mary Turner is a New Zealand public health advocate who is Director of the Immunisation Advisory Centre, University of Auckland the organisation that advises the New Zealand Medical profession and the New Zealand government. She has contributed to advisory committees for the New Zealand Ministry of Health and is a spokesperson for the NZ Child Poverty Action Group. Much of her research and outreach has focused on improving immunisation coverage and closing equity gaps for the national schedule vaccine delivery in New Zealand. Turner is an Associate Professor at the University of Auckland and an Honorary Associate Professor at the University of Otago, Wellington.Realitylink (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The focus and structure of the article could then be rearranged. I would suggest losing the section on education (it is the info box); changing some of what she is 'Known for" in the info box; probably losing most of the career section and just going to a section on IMAC; changing the layout of the research and outreach section to focus on equity of access (factors that affect that) and the work with Child Poverty Action - keeping an eye out for good references. The section on Covid could be moved to the section on IMAC and the section on the NZ measles be dropped (it can be added to the article on that). I would however recommend keeping the section on National advisory roles. What do you reckon folks? I could probably get this together in the next week and hopefully get a stay of execution for the page! Just thinking constructively here. Thanks for your patience. Realitylink (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok I have made substantial changes to the article with more of a focus on her public health profile and work. If this is accepted, I would move it to have the title changed to, perhaps: Nikki Turner (public health advocate).Realitylink (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seams, by the sources used and quick look around, a notable figure in NZ public health...It is not clear to me that "(academic general practitioner)" is the right label for the title as sources would seem to suggest via citations that a pass the WP:Prof test was borderline and that the public health stuff is what makes for notability. But I think could do with substantial trimming as the excessive content makes it seem, to me, over-promotional. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Msrasnw You might have a point about the title not being the best indicator of her notability. See the discussion above. Perhaps we come at this from the basis of 'NZ public health'? It's a good perspective you offer. I agree that it could be simplified.Realitylink (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep based on NPROF C1, but if GNG- or other NPROF-meeting criteria are dug up I will reconsider. I ran Scopus citation metrics on her 66 coauthors with 10 or more papers.
Total cites: average: 3539, median: 1572, Turner: 991.
Total papers: avg: 108, med: 62, T: 99.
h-index: avg: 24, med: 17, T: 17.
1st highest-cited paper: avg: 496, med: 241, T: 87. 2nd: avg: 260, med: 122, T: 43. 3rd: avg: 173, med: 88, T: 41. 4th: avg: 143, med: 61, T: 37. 5th: avg: 121, med: 51, T: 37.
She seems to be a standard academic in her field (edited to be less (unintentionally) condescending). EDIT: Change to keep due to GNG being met. JoelleJay (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay I agree she fails WP:NPROF but I think she passes WP:GNG, see the sources I found above including the most-read New Zealand internet portal calling her an stuff.co "top immunisation doctor". Based on this I changed my vote. --hroest 16:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Schwede66 my reading of that page was that it was a copy of a biographical entry in Thomson, Margie, and Simon Young. (2019), Womankind: New Zealand Women Making a Difference. , Penguin Books, Auckland. But I could not find the contents page or much about the book - other than praise for its photos. I think the page looks safe now .... Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Further to my previous comment, Dr Turner was on the 6pm news last night (New Zealand has two main TV channels and this item screened on TV3). Here's what they said: "New Zealand's most prominent vaccine expert says that the government needs to ramp up its communication about COVID-19 immunisation. Nikki Turner received a dose of the Pfizer vaccine today ..." That statement at the start would further give credence to general notability. If anybody wants to see the article, I've made a recording of it as it's almost impossible to find a specific item on their website (surprising, eh?); contact me via Wikimail and I'll put it up somewhere for private viewing. Schwede66 18:49, 30 March 2021 (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/Nikki_Turner_(academic_general_practitioner)&oldid=1079958208"