Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Jones
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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Douglas Jones
The most notable thing in this person's career appears to be that he has testified before a commission and a committee. Is that enough to satisfy notability? Weregerbil 12:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Jones is already mentioned on at least one other Wikipedia page, and the fact that he has testified before Congress on several occasions makes him a notable public figure. If the article needs to be rewritten in order to emphasize this significance, I'll be happy to do so; suggestions would be appreciated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NoDepositNoReturn (talk • contribs)
- A major figure in the world of electronic voting with dozens of journal and conference papers to his name, who has influenced the election policies of multiple countries, been quoted in the New York Times and Scientific American, and appeared on NPR, certainly sounds like a notable individual to me. NoDepositNoReturn
- Comment Weregerbil, would you like to correct this page so we know why you are nominating the article for deletion? I guess it is for lack of notability but it's a bit strange to have the argument started with no nomination. Yomangani 14:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment User:NoDepositNoReturn added his comment at the top; now moved down. Weregerbil 16:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Jones is well-known within the field of electronic voting. He certainly appears to rise to the level of notability, especially given this subject's importance to the world nowadays. (ObDisclosure: I work with Jones. However, you can certainly verify what I'm saying just by Googling for "Doug Jones" and "electronic voting". Please note that one of the hits comes from Professor Ron Rivest's homepage, which links to Jones and describes him as an expert on electronic voting.) Rob 19:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete - Non-notable per WP:BIO. The only test he gets close to in the guideline is: Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field, but I doubt the article qualifies under that as it stands. I suggest adding the references from the NY Times and Scientific American to try and establish notability. Yomangani 22:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You refer to the "guideline" like it is a prescriptive policy. If something doesn't fit under it then you should not even refer to it. Make your own judgement based on the actual 5-6 real Wikipedia policies, like verifiability and neutrality. You did not refer to them at all, as if this is just a notability exercise. Ansell 02:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - since non-notability was the reason for the nomination, I think it is reasonable to refer to the guidelines when suggesting improvements to get the article to a 'Keep' status. If you notice, I added 3 references before giving my opinion but, since these were essentially sources from the subject's website, I suggested adding the other references. I could have just as well referred to WP:OR and WP:V but felt this was redundant. I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion to keep if the policies are met, but don't want to see this get another AFD in a couple of months for the same reason. Yomangani 11:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The NYT articles were on 28 July 2004, 2 March 2004, 9 November 2003 and 26 September 2003, and are thus only available for purchase now. Same thing for the SciAm article. Should links to purchase them be provided? I'll add a link to the NPR interviews, as they are freely available.
- Comment - since non-notability was the reason for the nomination, I think it is reasonable to refer to the guidelines when suggesting improvements to get the article to a 'Keep' status. If you notice, I added 3 references before giving my opinion but, since these were essentially sources from the subject's website, I suggested adding the other references. I could have just as well referred to WP:OR and WP:V but felt this was redundant. I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion to keep if the policies are met, but don't want to see this get another AFD in a couple of months for the same reason. Yomangani 11:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You refer to the "guideline" like it is a prescriptive policy. If something doesn't fit under it then you should not even refer to it. Make your own judgement based on the actual 5-6 real Wikipedia policies, like verifiability and neutrality. You did not refer to them at all, as if this is just a notability exercise. Ansell 02:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The person is sufficiently well known to have verifiable material written on them. Why go any further with establishing "extra notability" Ansell 02:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable. If testifying before congress makes someone notable we are gonig to end up with thousands of articles of people who just testified in front of congress. Being cited or asked a question in a newspaper does not make the person notable, the articles arent written about them, but about voting. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This person is well known within the field of computer science, and regarded as one of the leading experts in the field of electronic voting. He also has an extensive peer-reviewed publication record. --Rabbi 00:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - notability has been verified. --Royalbroil 04:09, 3 August 2006 (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.
