Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Collé (3rd nomination)

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: significantly rewritten to address problems. `'mikka 19:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. in Talk:Ronald Collé the concern was expressed that the outcome would be rather no consensus. Without arguing, the article still stays. `'mikka 22:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Collé

Ronald Collé (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

OR that cannot be referenced. Tagged for months with no progress. LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 05:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No indepedant non trivial sources so can't pass WP:BIO or WP:PROF--Dacium 05:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dacium ~ G1ggy! _{blah, blah, blah} 05:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. No references for months --> fails WP:V and therefore all of our other guidelines. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 13:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I see no claim of notability, the "NIST profile" link is simply his NIST phonebook entry. Pete.Hurd 22:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• That one link was the only thing I could find from Google about him. Sad, isn't it? At least we know he exists now. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 08:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Too little sourcing to make a real article. Via Google scholar I was able to find some information about his publications ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]) but no indication that any of these pubs are of any significance. —David Eppstein 23:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep now that this third AfD has led to proper sourcing and expansion. —David Eppstein 18:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep GS has many results so notability isnt a problem, however RS is. However, the facts in the article are not outrageous, and can be sourced as I have done with one source. Also, the previous Afd was only just recently closed as keep. The Afd before that was also a keep. John Vandenberg 04:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, a lack of sources is a much worse problem than perceived lack of notability. Not to mention there's a simple question to answer: Why bother creating an article if we're just mirroring or rewording a single source? --Wafulz 04:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Because an article with one source is always only one edit away from being an article with two sources.
      In this case, two sets of Wikipedians have looked at the subject and concluded this subject is valuable and the articles content was not disputed. It now has two different RS, and it is perfectly reasonable to expect that many more are available, and they will find their way onto the article in the years to come. Wikipedia is a work in progress. John Vandenberg 05:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 31 hits to published articles he's written. Journals relative to his field. Past that, he's passed two previous AfDs but each specified that there needed to be additional references. Nothing has been done to that article in months. The references are the same now as they were before the first AfD. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 04:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Sure, it needed additional references. Luckily that is an easy problem to fix (as the people in the last two afd's concluded). John Vandenberg 05:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
      • First, if it's such an easy task then why has it not been done? The previous two AfDs were concluded in March 2006 and April 2007. It's been tagged since December. For whatever reason, many are fans of this article but have zero interest in making it acceptable. It doesn't meet the criteria to pass AfD yet there is a rally to keep it. I don't get it. Second, even if I had any interest in working on this article, I've looked... there's nothing to reference. All these statements in the article can't be backed up. Hence the fact that it fails WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:BIO. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 14:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep
  • part one, N: Notability for researchers is typically established by their publications. People become notable scientists by writing notable research papers. He has ninety published papers, far more than the average researcher which is one per year at the most. The few linked above are just ones from the biomedical index Pubmed, and he was a radiochemist. using Science Citation Index, The papers were published in such journals as (in process--server down tonight)

(hits mentioned by LL above just from GS. Look at his dates: most of his work will be pre 1999, & thats why he has no web page.

He was Associate editor of Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology probably the most important metrology journal

• • part two: RS. The publication of the papers which is the basis of N already has extremely RS--the indexing entries for the journal articles. This is really sufficient for everything but the bio details, and the 3 key points have RS also:

The bylines of the papers cited by David E, together with the masthead from the J of Research NBS added by John V., give verification of his position

The doctorate is verified by DissAbs--(citation to be added.) I see a fact tag for the BS degree, which is pushing things a little for someone with a PhD

In AfD2, only one ed. wanted further refs., and it wasn't mentioned in AGK's closing. in AfD1. nobody even said anything about it in the discussion or the closing.

With respect to repeated noms, If one were really waiting for refs, I think that perhaps one would wait longer than a week after the immediately prev AfD. Closely repeated AfDs inevitably give the appearance of relying on repeating until by chance the deletes outnumber the keeps. Given normal variability, that is bound to happen sooner or later. DGG 05:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see this article until a week ago. I failed an article nominated for GA based largely on lack of reliable sources. The main editor to that article mentioned that the this article exists with practically none, so I read it. It fails WP:BIO, WP:OR, and WP:V. It's passed 2 previous AfDs with multiple votes for keep but apparently not many are interested in fixing it. It has been tagged for MONTHS. I left a message on the talk page a few days ago warning that if improvements weren't made I would renominate AfD. And it's not like it was an impossible request. I've helped bring articles up to GA standards in less time.

If so many people want to keep this article, it shouldn't take long to collaborate to fix it. As it is now, it's a pimple on the face of Wikipedia, so to speak. It doesn't look good for an encyclopedic article.

Concerning my inaccurate comments of the previous AfDs noting the need for sources, I looked back over them and recalled that I was totally blown away that it wasn't mentioned in either one, which made me question if the keep voters had even bothered to read it before giving their opinions. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 05:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep clearly notable. --Buridan 18:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Notability is not the issue in question here. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Since the distinction between Type A and Type B uncertainty is clearly notable, so are its authors. However, it bothers me that I could not find any source beside Wikipedia mirrors substantiating the assertion that Collè is in fact its co-author. Stammer 10:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: A similar claim is made on Churchill Eisenhart (I've left a note on that talk page), and Google Scholar: Eisenhart Collé hints towards them being closely involved in the development of this subject. If we cant confirm this, the statement needs to be tagged and removed from both articles. John Vandenberg 11:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

They published a couple of papers as joint authors, one of them with Ku, where they may have set forth the distinction. However, I did not find any source confirming that the Type A-Type B distinction originates there. Stammer 11:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Although debatable, notability is not the issue here. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 13:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep and Comment: Is this how AfD works? If someone doesn't get an outcome they like, the article can be nominated again two weeks later? It seems to me that the most important reason to keep is to ensure that the debate just two weeks ago gets at least some sort of respect. --Myke Cuthbert 15:52, 9 May 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.