Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Rector

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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:55Z

[edit] Alan Rector

Alan Rector (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No notability is claimed in the article, although possibly he might meet WP:BIO criteria this is not claimed in this stub article Billlion 11:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, unsourced and unreferenced AlfPhotoman 15:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, effectively a link farm, not even a stub. Bobanny 18:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Much better. As a suggestion, you might want to reverse the order of much of the information - putting his accomplishments ahead of the more day to day stuff. Bobanny 23:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability is claimed through being appointed a professor, Professor#Most_other_English-speaking_countries, in a UK university. This is a position only academics reknowned in their field receive. The article needs expanding though. Nuttah68 09:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Certainly professor is fairly high rank in a UK University, but I think it falls below what is required for notability in the wikipedia sense. A typical professor would be an editor of a journal and loads of publications, grants and PhD students. But that in itself is not notable, in a sense they are just doing their job. On the other hand any science professor with an FRS or engineering professor who is an FREng almost certainly would be notable. My interpretation of Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), 1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. 2. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field. has to be backed up by evidence that is verifiable, I don't think the result of a promotion board can be considered as that. I must declare an interest, I am a professor at a UK university. Billlion 10:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • 'in a sense they are just doing their job'. A large proprotion of the biographies on Wikipedia are for people who are notable purely because of their job, John Terry, Tony Blair, Michael Vaughan etc. Doing a job is not a reason to include or exclude a biography but a what level that job places you. Nuttah68 10:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is merely an over-modest article - as was an AfD a little earlier. Did the nom think to check the links? He is a member or leader of many of the UK Semantic Web and related information Science groups, including several international committees. I added the to the article just now. DGG 22:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The additions by DGG demonstrate notability. Eastmain 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think checking the links is the point. Links should point to secondary sources so that the case for notability established in the article can be verified. I admit I am being a little provocative, but I feel strongly such articles should make a case for notability even if they are stubs. Similar point for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carole Goble. Billlion 21:22, 5 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.