Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Boyle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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. While it's almost de rigeur for any academic to portray themselves as God's gift to their field (heck, most of the ones I know are certain they are), there are generally-accepted standards for them to get a Wikipedia entry. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Timothy Boyle
Soccer base returns nil and perhaps two papers (1 link broken) doth not notability make. Delete. TerriersFan 13:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmmm, apparently he played professional football at "the start of the nineties", when he was approximately 11 years old...... ChrisTheDude 13:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Surely it is good to have pages for young scientists as it allows them to get better recognition and if all scientists existed on wikipedia then it would be easy to find out about research that is going on in these places. Curious Gregor Synthesis for all 14:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curious Gregor (talk • contribs).
- If you take a look at various policies you will see that Wikipedia is specifically not a place for obscure people to acquire recognition. Also, as the person who added it, could you address the blatantly untrue claim of this man playing professional football....? ChrisTheDude 13:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I found no reference to football within the article, however academics should all be allowed pages as they carry out work in the public domain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.40.76.3 (talk • contribs).
- Curious Gregor removed the claim about football shortly after I flagged it up as nonsense in my first message above (see here), however I notice that you yourself (or at least someone using your IP) have now added this man's name into the Barnet article.... ChrisTheDude 13:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- He does not appear on the Branet page when I examine it, I assume it was related to Tim Boyle the AFC player?? Curious GregorSynthesis for all 14:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- He does not appear on the Barnet page because I removed what was blatantly a vandalism edit, but if you look here you can clearly see where 128.40.76.3 added his name ChrisTheDude 13:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- So he does Curious GregorSynthesis for all 14:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- He does not appear on the Barnet page because I removed what was blatantly a vandalism edit, but if you look here you can clearly see where 128.40.76.3 added his name ChrisTheDude 13:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- He does not appear on the Branet page when I examine it, I assume it was related to Tim Boyle the AFC player?? Curious GregorSynthesis for all 14:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Curious Gregor removed the claim about football shortly after I flagged it up as nonsense in my first message above (see here), however I notice that you yourself (or at least someone using your IP) have now added this man's name into the Barnet article.... ChrisTheDude 13:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I found no reference to football within the article, however academics should all be allowed pages as they carry out work in the public domain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.40.76.3 (talk • contribs).
- If you take a look at various policies you will see that Wikipedia is specifically not a place for obscure people to acquire recognition. Also, as the person who added it, could you address the blatantly untrue claim of this man playing professional football....? ChrisTheDude 13:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I feel that the page has been edited sufficiently to remove it from the deletion section, as it no longer mentions anything related to the original errors. Curious Gregor Synthesis for all 14:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that this article now passes the guidelines for creative professionals and should stay.
"Creative professionals: scientists, academics, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals. The person has received notable awards or honors. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance." 128.40.76.3
- Keep Dr Timothy Boyle is quite a prominant chemist. i am surprised he didnt already have his own entry. I think it should stay.Mad kemist
- user's first edit. bikeable (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mad kemist is a suspected Curious Gregor sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Curious Gregor Pete.Hurd 04:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable academic; see WP:PROF. bikeable (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The notability of academics is still under discussion - so you cannot yet define him as not notable according to wikipedia. It is more that you have never heard of him. Just to ask how many academic chemists have you heard of? Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 16:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curious Gregor (talk • contribs) 16:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
- Delete I don't see any notability - the bolded area quoted by the anon user doesn't appear to be met - yes, he's produced a few papers and a joint patent, but where are the sources to say this is "a significant or well-known work" or a "significant new concept"? EliminatorJR Talk 16:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I see from your profile you teach at a university so are an academic - do you feel your work is unoriginal and has no relevance to your field? Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 16:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that, but I know for sure that it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. EliminatorJR Talk 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why not? You have done something new and that had never before been seen upon this earth. If that is not a reason to be noteworthy I don't know what is. Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 16:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- The point at AfD, however, is slightly different. It is not "is Mr.Boyle's work notable", but "does Mr. Boyle's article have sufficient secondary sources to back that up". EliminatorJR Talk 17:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would consider you wrong there. The article being in chemistry needs to be peer reviewed and reference the work it built upon, however, the number of bits of work it cites is not how it should be judged. Some of the most unique work cannot site much in the way of prior art. Also as he has a PhD he should surely be Dr!!!- Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 17:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I realise that WP:ATT can be tricky to hit with academia, but I would expect if Dr.Boyle had "significantly advanced the field of chemistry" as the article states, there should at least be some peer review or similar documentation available? I'm not trying to be awkward here - even though I voted Delete above, I'm quite willing to be persuaded. EliminatorJR Talk 18:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with your comment on "significantly advanced the field of chemistry" and feel that it is probably just him being big headed - so have editted it so that it just says what he actually did. However, an improvemnet in methodology can be important in the field as it is these changes that allow for whole new fields to open themselves up. I am also arguing the same case for the page Dr Alethea Tabor. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 18:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I realise that WP:ATT can be tricky to hit with academia, but I would expect if Dr.Boyle had "significantly advanced the field of chemistry" as the article states, there should at least be some peer review or similar documentation available? I'm not trying to be awkward here - even though I voted Delete above, I'm quite willing to be persuaded. EliminatorJR Talk 18:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would consider you wrong there. The article being in chemistry needs to be peer reviewed and reference the work it built upon, however, the number of bits of work it cites is not how it should be judged. Some of the most unique work cannot site much in the way of prior art. Also as he has a PhD he should surely be Dr!!!- Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 17:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- The point at AfD, however, is slightly different. It is not "is Mr.Boyle's work notable", but "does Mr. Boyle's article have sufficient secondary sources to back that up". EliminatorJR Talk 17:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why not? You have done something new and that had never before been seen upon this earth. If that is not a reason to be noteworthy I don't know what is. Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 16:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that, but I know for sure that it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. EliminatorJR Talk 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I see from your profile you teach at a university so are an academic - do you feel your work is unoriginal and has no relevance to your field? Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 16:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 20:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- delete fails WP:PROF by a wide margin. I'll be persuaded that this person has significantly advanced the field of chemistry when their h-index is demonstrated to be well over a dozen. As it is, the article lists a mere 5 "journal articles", of which two appear to be patent applications, and one is a conference poster. That's nowhere close to WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd 00:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Might I enquire, in terms of the h-factor, how are patents ranked against journal articles. I have rarely seen patents cited in the chemical literature, but surely a scientist's number pf patents need to be included in the h-factor in some way. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 12:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Patents: One could use the h factor principle for patents; however, I have not seen it used that way yet, and there would be technical difficulties. It is quite difficult to find all the patents for an individual person, include the ones that may have been entered under the name of a company, and sort out the duplicates, and then see which other patents cited them.. The public access databases, such as Scirus or USPTO, list some, but even Chemical Abstracts and Web of Science do not have the necessary facilities for an adequate citation search. This sort of searching is a profession of its own, and if we have anyone here with the knowledge and the access to the extremely expensive commercial databases,please let us know. Even having done found them all, I cannot imagine a rational way of combining this with journal article citations, for the principles about what one cites are different. Therefore, in WP , we use whatever patents we get told about of happen to find in an ordinary search. DGG 03:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete if a poster session is needed to pad the pub record, it's not strong enough. —David Eppstein 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- comment WP:AUTO? See diff for evidence in support of the suggestion that Mad kemist (suspected sockpuppet of Curious Gregor, the article's creator) is Timothy Boyle, the article's subject. Pete.Hurd 15:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
