Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. Dooley

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 2 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)

[edit] John A. Dooley

He's not a very outspoken advocate as claimed. Google only finds about 200 matches for his name and wireless together (if you leave out the middle initial), and not all of those are relevant. This seems like vanity to me. --Xcali 04:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Just to clarify - the original author has now asked that the article be deleted in his comment below. The article has only been edited by the author (apart from the VfD). This is thus speediable. Thanks to the author for their understanding. -Splash 03:08, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree...I submitted this guy because I had do a presentation on his work this past Spring and it was difficult to find complete information on him (he is a pretty young fellow). Thus, my hope was to get others adding content. First saw him lecture at MIT in the fall...and have found numerous articles/text citations on the guy. The bulk of his work involved technology for 3G wireless networks. His research resulted in a way of allowing limited amounts of RF spectrum to be recycled at many times the rate allowed by existing technologies. This is currently a very big deal among wireless telco providers creating next-gen infrastructure. Also, he is CEO of a New York-based company called Novatics. These are the basics of what I have on him. -B. Manohar Pseudo-signed edit by 24.190.83.190 (talk · contribs)

• Note: this statement is from the article's author. --Xcali 06:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I do not disagree in any way with the above author's statement, and I sympathize. The problem here is that Wikipedia is intended to be a tertiary source of information. Therefore, while we may get praised for being "leading edge" in technology coverage, that's a result of the blindness of print encyclopedias. We're supposed to be slow and conservative about coverage and to accept figures who have already demonstrated notability. That's a vague term, but in the case of living authors most people mean by that that the figure turns up quite a few hits via Google. Obviously, this leads to distortions (people mistakenly (IMO) vote to keep minor actors and pornographers while missing artists), but it is the best method we have. This particular person is not yet discussed enough by other sources for an encyclopedia article to be written that isn't original research. However, I, and I'm sure we, welcome the contributions and the desire to broaden our coverage. Geogre 13:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable. I looked around IEEEXplore (which is authoritative) and 'Dooley' produced no publications that could be this guy if his field is wireless. To be notable in the field, you'll have published in an IEEE journal for sure. Note, without subscription access to IEEEXplore, you won't be able to verify what I say. It might help is someone else could back me up on this. -Splash 14:39, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• I am impressed with the volunteer review process, and I think that the comments made here are valid. I study the effects of telecommunications on society, and my continual frustration is that there is very little information available on key innovators in the wireless field over the last thirty years. For example, individuals like Martin Cooper (effective inventor of the cellular phone we know today) are not represented in Wikipedia. This, I believe, is due to the wireless industry media, which has always been less than stellar. I can think of at least half a dozen otherwise anonymous individuals in the field whose individual contributions have had profound economic, technological and social impacts. Having said this, I share Geogre’s sentiments, and I now feel that the relevant administrator should remove this listing until there is more broad-based awareness of Dooley and/or others can submit a more comprehensive article. -B. Manohar (author of article)

That's impressively understanding of you. If you are happy for an admin to delete it, you could go to the page, and add a {{db|I'm the *'''Comment''' seems to be notable, but there is not enough material in the article to judge. If the author manages to expand, I would vote keep. For now, I abstain.

• I've added some additional data, if only for the archive in case this topic is revisited down the line. I found Dooley's email address in an article he wrote last year. However, I've not yet heard back with additional biographical information. Interesting character nonetheless. -B. Manohar (article author)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.