Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Clackson

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 Delete. Eluchil404 22:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Clackson

Stephen Clackson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Notability and verifiability issues. The three weblinks uses as references do not prove notability: once a member of council of a town with 478 people, a scanned img of one newspaper article from an unknown newspaper, and a link to his coat of arms. The one ref that is supposed to prove notability is to a book or paper "X-ray Studies of Defects in Diamond and Gallium Arsenide", but if you google it all that turns up are wikis about this guy. Unknown if this reference is even real, certainly not verifiable. The article says he has something to do with the Clackson scroll formula, and then in that article the reference is unverifiable, and doesn't show up on google at all either. Search for "Clackson scroll formula" on google and you only come up with various wiki pages. Google the guy's name and you only get wiki pages, and a couple posting from a message board. No proof of Notability and Unverifiable. Celtus 07:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. I share the concerns of the nominator, after tracing the various wiki pages, and the Wikipedia entry for the Clackson scroll formula gives a reference dated 1981, which he therefore composed at age 20, and eight years before what looks like his non-notable Ph.D. thesis; makes me wonder if it's the same Clackson, given his description as someone well known for "lampooning". Also, the Clackson scroll formula is described as a "simple equation" -- but I wonder just how many blacksmiths are using it, since all the Google hits don't seem to have anything to do with blacksmithing. I suspect it's trivial, and all these suspicions add up to a delete. Accounting4Taste 19:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Crusio 20:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete He is not is a notable physicist. Web of Science shows a total of 6 articles, cited respectively, 12, 5, 4, 1, 0 and 0 times. This is not worth further discussion. . DGG (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep weak ref.--Truest blue 04:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and DGG, fails WP:PROF. Bearian 00:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Blacksmiths on the continent use the scroll formula. (UK and US metalworkers are less mathematically minded and tend to draw out the scroll and measure it with a piece of string rather than use a formula.) Scrumpo 22:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow to improve This article is stub class. Judging by its history it has been gradually developping. Given time hopefully more references will be forthcoming. Rather than nipping it in the bud, let Wikipedia nurture it. 81.155.34.117 23:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Without doubt he is notable (dare I say notorious) among British, especially Scottish, heraldists. As for his science, I am not in the position to comment, but this link [1] would suggest that he is one and the same. Ednan 07:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The website lets anyone "Nominate yourself or someone you know" to show add their name and Coats of Arms to the list. Notability requires objective evidence, not wikis, message board postings or sites anyone can submit their own information. WP:NOTABILITY.--Celtus 08:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I was not suggesting that my link demonstrated his notability, the link was to demonstrate that the heraldist was the same person as the scientist (as doubt of this was expressed by Accounting4Taste above). Ednan 11:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment I was doubting that the inventor of the scroll formula at age 20 was the same as the composer of what seems to be a Ph.D. thesis eight years later... I have no opinion about the heraldry. Accounting4Taste 14:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. His scroll formula is significant, although it is clearly difficult to find online references to it, however given the practical nature of the topic this is not very surprising. We should not jump to delete articles simply because references are difficult to find online. There have been many contributions to this article and in my opinion we should WP:GF and keep it. Je sais! 17:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and DGG.--Eva bd 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Web of Science does not pick up industrial journals which may only circulate within the industry or be subject to commercial confidentiality. In the case of diamond research, such as he has done, most work is sponsored by De Beers and only what is not commercially sensitive reaches the public domain. Therefore DGG can pursue his project of "keeping articles about academics & academic organizations from deletion" with a clear conscience in this case. 86.146.49.13 11:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hey look, I found all my missing SOCKS. Burntsauce 23:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete NN Tiptopper 17:30, 29 September 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.