Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Brimelow

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 -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Brimelow

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Jason Brimelow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This person does not seem to satisfy any notability criteria.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• There is np inclusion anywhere of any british clinical scientists. The whole area of healthcare science is very vague, this is why i made an inclusion. It is by no means complete and there are external references and scientific publication references to add. I have no idea if im supposed to edit this bit, to add my comments, and i didnt mean to delete anything before..im new to this — he_devil He devil 13:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  — He devil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I've placed your message in the correct place. The issue is whether this scientist is notable, and in this respect, I am sure he doesn't satisfy WP:NOTE. I also want to ask you whether you are Jason Brimelow, given the amount of time you have spent adding material about him. If so, this isn't really the way to do things. Also see Peter Medawar, and other names as a counter-example. If you have the material to establish notability, then please add it quickly, otherwise I see no reason to delay this article's deletion.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• i think its a very worthy entry. He is pretty famous in my field — Karen 82.33.227.210 14:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  — 82.33.227.210 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

(moved again, for similar reasons to the first message.) If he is "pretty famous", then one should find it an easy task to immediately add various verifications and citations to back this up. See WP:NOTE, WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:References as a pointer of how to do this. I do recommend speed here, however.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. No evidence of non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 14:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (as nominator of this AfD)  DDStretch  (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I don't know if that is correct to vote to delete when the article was nominated by you? I do agree that it should be deleted, as I stated below, but still don't think there should be two votes by you, which I see this as being. Iamchrisryan 14:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. My apologies. I wasn't sure what should be done here, as I recall seeing similar things done on other AfDs. But to make sure, I've deleted my opinion now. Thanks for drawing my attention to it.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable. No references, barely even an article here. Iamchrisryan 14:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - perfectly worthy scientific career, but nothing to suggest notability (i.e. only a handful of Google hits, and no newspaper or book references findable). Gordonofcartoon 16:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• i have heard him speak at many national radiotherapy meetings since 2002 and i was also at the national total body irradiation seminar he chaired in 2006. Maybe you arent looking in the right places, medical physics is a small but worthy section of the community and just because you cant google him many times it doesnt mean he isnt worthy of a mention. To prove a point i followed his links earlier and googled curtis jobling, the creater of bob the builder, who went to his school. He doesnt have many mentions and is obviously deemed a mention — emma 81.109.208.21 18:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  — 81.109.208.21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

On the basis of what we have here, he is non-notable. If you feel he is notable, then feel free to add the sources and citations that you think demonstrate this (it is not our job to do so if you think they are readily available, they would be better added by yourself. They would make good second and later edits to wikipedia by yourself.) Personal recollections just won't do here.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting similarity of typography between he_devil and these newcomers... Gordonofcartoon 18:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, i have included one or two links to his papers that i found very easily on google, call it a secondary edit as suggested earlier. They seem very worthy and interesting to me — Carlacoles Carlacoles 08:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  — Carlacoles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Refactored, as the typical error is again committed by all these people supporting the retention of this article. The is comment and the addition of material on the article are the only edits of this user so far.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment : As of this morning, some material has been added that seem to be publications that Jason Brimelow has. As far as I can tell, this alone is not sufficient to establish notability (see WP:BIO criteria), although it might help. If it were sufficient, most university lecturers, past and present (in the UK) would qualify for an article, as would myself.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 06:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 06:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• delete fails WP:PROF which seems to be the claim for notability, as a scientific researcher, one pub listed in ISI WoS (cited three times) that's no ground for a claim of notatbility. Pete.Hurd 15:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• i still think there are more worthless entries in here, maybe we need a subsection of medical physics then, if you insist on deletion? -- emma82.3.226.32 18:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC) — 82.3.226.32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There already are articles on medical physicists. Let us know when he gets credentials at the level of Walter Mauderli, Harold E. Johns, Rosalyn Sussman Yalow, Robert Roland Hughes, etc. Gordonofcartoon 19:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

so tell me about the inclusion of robert hughes and his son? what is the inclusion policy there? we are talking about modern day physicists here. I know jason was instrumental in the implementation of the 1996 IPEM electron code of practice throughout the UK, this work is shown in his entry. He has also provided guidelines to the IPEM regarding TBI and clinical audit, also provided in his entry. I know not much about his earlier work in oceanography other than that shown in his references but clearly he is a scientist of good repute and is known throughout the physics and medical physics community. It seems here that scientists are only added if they have recieved major awards yet others such as footballers simply are added because they have played professionally. This guy is a professionally registered scientist so whats the differnce between this entry and say the entry for the footballer carl cort? -- emma82.3.226.32 22:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And I have no idea what "professionally registered scientist" means. -- Satori Son 23:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And sorry, emma, if you want to impersonate an independent user, you really need to work on your grasp of capitalisation and apostrophes. Gordonofcartoon 00:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, emma, if you think that this information establishes notability, then, if it can be verified by appropriate citations and references, it should be added to the article and this will inform the debate. The fact that you have not done this, despite it being mentioned before, indicates that such verification may well not exist. Notability cannot be established by an affirmation by some editor. Your and your fellow editors' contributions here would be better spent searching out and adding the relevant information (if it does exist) than making comments here that also indicate that you may not have grasped how wikipedia requires notability to be established, or by making an attempt to link this deletion with another one (see this diff.) As Satori Son pointed out, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Incidentally "registered scientist" presumably means he is a member of some professional body, possibly involving a chartering process run by some body of the UK (see Professional qualifications in the United Kingdom.) This will also not be sufficient to establish notability, because enormous numbers of people will have these qualifications (over 10000, certainly, in the case of the British Psychological Society, and the Royal Statistical Society alone, which I know about.) What would help would be references in verifiable sources that refer to Jason Brimelow, but which are not by him, and which are not simply flyers for talks or seminars by him. Those would be a good starting point, but, again, not intrinsically sufficient by themselves. That so much effort has now been exerted and no such sources have been forthcoming rather seems to strangthen the idea that he is not notable according to the requires wikipedia has.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It fails notability. -- Magioladitis 23:59, 5 October 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.