Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul F. Whelan

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. John254 02:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul F. Whelan

Paul F. Whelan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I PRODded this article, but the PROD was removed with the comment "full professor with two books, probably notable". We need more evidence than that to pass WP:PROF BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Unsure First, a brief comment about the rank. Being a Professor in Irelend means rather more than being a Full Professor in the U.S. and corresponds to something like holding a named Chair or a Distinguished Professor rank in the U.S. I looked at the guy's own web site and there is quite a bit of biographical data there (I presume correct), some of which appears notable. For example, he was a member of the Governing Board for the The International Association for Pattern Recognition (IAPR), as confirmed by datae from IAPR's website[1]. On the other hand, a Google Scholar search gives only three reasonably well cited articles (14, 21, 45 citations). Given that, accoding to his web page, he has over 100 publications, I don't understand why the citation rates are so low. Could it be that Google Scholar misses many references in this field? I checked the Web of Science and the citation rates for Whelan are also very low there. So I don't quite understant what is going on here.... Nsk92 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Changing to Very Weak Keep. When I looked more closely at his publication list and compared it to his Google Scholar record, it became clear that many of his publications in various conference proceedings, etc, do not show up in Google Scholar, presumably because of the way Goggle Scholar collects its data. I hate to use credentialism, but the fact that he has a personal chair appointment in Irelend, together with the fact that he has held substantial elective offices in scholarly societies (chairperson of Irish Pattern Recognition and Classification Society and a member of the governing board of the International Association for Pattern Recognition), together with his publication record, are probably enough to indicate notability. Nsk92 (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Changing to Weak Keep, per Sebastian Placois' comments. I still would very much prefer to see some explicit evidence of his influence on the work of others, either in terms of high citation rates or awards or in some other way. Nsk92 (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not a field where peer-reviewed papers count for much. As you say, Scopus, WoS, and GS give overlapping incomplete results. Two major monographs from a major scientific publisher, one of which is in the second edition, is significant in showing him an expert in the field.Very few technical books ever reach a second edition. DGG (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Q: DGG, I take it that the book in second edition isn't the one in the bio which is noted to be in its second printing, is it? Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand notable professor who needs a real article to do him justice. Dreamspy (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Outstanding professor, but does not meet notability necessary to be in a encyclopedia. No offense for professors, but they are not notable just for being good professors. The article only relies on one single source which poorly supports the article, which is already poor, for two reasons. One, it is a primary source. Second, part of the page is written in first person which means that the information has been stated by himself. Thus, it does not meet notability nor reliability. He is an outstanding professional and I am sure he is in the right track to become notable and appear in a encyclopedia.--Sebastian Palacios (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Source and keep Here's in detail notability such as founding several computer research groups, conferences, articles, and multiple references of his work-supplied by user Jfire-. The problem was the the article is too poorly sourced. Thank you DGG for sharing your experienced knowledge. --Sebastian Palacios (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:V allows the use of self-published materials if the information they contain is uncontroversial and there are no reasonable doubts as to its veracity. Regarding the standards for inclusion, neither WP:N nor WP:PROF require the subject of an article to be increadibly famous; rather, substantial prominence in their profession or field of endeavor is required. We do not require for academics to win the Nobel Prize to have a WP article about them, and neither do we require actors to win an Oscar before there is an entry about them. In fact, an encyclopedia is a catalogue of important information, rather than popular information. So an entry about an academic subject is more encyclopedic than something about the doings of the World Wrestling Federation... Nsk92 (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The encyclopedia should not be prejudiced against professional wrestlers. Professions get judged equally: the top levels are notable (or important, or outstanding, or noteworthy--all of them approximate synonyms with slight shades of meaning, but all implying appropriateness for an encyclopedia. What we regard of their social value, or the interest we take in them are other things entirely. I have no interest whatsoever in the career of major league baseball players. If other people find them entertaining or inspiring, I'm prepared to concede a degree of social importance. I have heard of a few, however, if they make the regular news sections of papers--the sports pages are a specialised not a general information source. I wouldn't dream of limiting the encyclopedia to only those few however, and what other professions should have is equal standing. Not equal criteria. the standard for baseball is full time professional standing on a major league team &, I think, playing in even a single game. As applied to faculty, that includes every assistant professor in a research university. But I don't claim them as encyclopedic, because that's not the top level. (and because in reality nobody in the profession thinks that's of more than highly provisional importance, including themselves.) Sports and academic make suitable comparison cases because there's a formal hierarchy. Many professions are much more impressionistic, like authorship or acting. They solve their own problem there by being very generous with awards and ranking lists. Each profession has its own standards. If we're going to work together, we have to accept each other's interests and standards. It's analgous to the way we treat different language/cultural areas equally.
Or shall we eliminate everything that we don't all agree belongs here? There's a sizable minority who do not really accept the role of porn stars and wrestlers, just as for academics. Shall we eliminate all but the ones of permanent historic interest to the general public, and go on from there? That probably eliminates most bishops and state legislators and even many best-selling novelists and musicians. Quick, how many internet figures do you think belong in the permanent record--how many can you name without being prompted? with being prompted? For that matter, how many members of another country's parliament? Is there any American here who can go down a list of people and pick out who are the British MPs? (I won't embarrass by asking about the Russian parliament.) How many saints does a non-Catholic recognize? (I wont embarrass and ask how many recognized Buddhist or Sufi saints a Christian would recognize.) Consensus means we have to put up with each other and accept minorities. Otherwise, the best we can aim at is a free internet version of the EB. that's a perfectly reasonable goal, and anyone who wants to do it can make a fork, and do a ReallyImportantPedia, DGG (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we should move a long discussion like this off this AfD page and to a more appropriate forum. Let me just say, that in my (admittedly prejudiced) opinion, a hundred years from now the world will remember a lot more of the presently living academics than of the presently living professional wrestlers or, say, pornographic actors. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with DGG. Some people will remember academics other people porn actors; the both need to be considered. Even though I am purely Christian and I do not support pornography I have to be objective.--Sebastian Palacios (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Seems to meet WP:PROF. Article could use better sourcing though, (and is already tagged as such). No valid reasons to delete have been presented, IMO. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • keep Being a professor in this context means much more than it does in say the US. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Here's a more detailed CV, which includes details such as founding several computer vision research groups and directing the Centre for Image Processing & Analysis. Jfire (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I revised this article and it supports Professor's Whelan notability. The article can be improved and achieve WP:N.--Sebastian Palacios (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2008 (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.