Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven R. White

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, definitely meets WP:PROF after improvements. NawlinWiki 20:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steven R. White

Steven R. White (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Speedy userfication is being contested by DGG. It seemed obvious to me that this was autobiographical in nature, but whatever the case, it's here now. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain Wafulz 04:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is a clear violation of multiple policies including WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS. Criteria under WP:SPEEDY clearly states that an article can be removed if not encyclopedic in nature and amounts to a personal advertisement for an individual. I'd also like to note DGG's comment regarding speedy deletion that "some encyclopedic information and sources were needed" prior to his removing an article lacking the above ([WP:V]] and WP:RS, in other words). Unsure of why there would be a double standard simply because the subject of the article is a university professor, however until there are third-party sources this should be removed post haste.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 05:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please refer to WP:PROF in this discussion. Morgan Wick 08:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability - the only reason I can see is his invention...and since no detail is given about it, even that isn't asserting notability (we have no idea whether it's notable or not). --Tim4christ17 talk 11:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Change to Keep. The article now asserts notability. --Tim4christ17 talk 19:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep after it gets improved. Speedy was first claimed under G7--but any rational assertion is enough, certainly developing a major theory. It was then argued under G11, but a one paragraph bland description of a person's career is not an advertisement. And WP:AUTO is not a speedy criterion, just a reason to look carefully. . But the article is now at AfD--a perfectly appropriate place to discuss it, if one doubts the importance. One form of meting WP:PROF is development of a notable theory. And he is in fact listed as the developer in the lede paragraph of the WP article on the theory. Yes, proper references needed, and are forthcoming.

As a brief guide , he has published 99 peer-reviewed article according to Web of Science. His most cited ones have received 1075,843,283,266 248 references--obvious recognition of notability by others in the field, WP:PROF. His h-index is 38,that is38 papers cited 38 or more times. Doesn't take access to Web of Science. Google Scholar lists 214 articles--some of them will be duplicates--giving 1139 & 997 references to the top two. Netkinetic marked it for deletion with the edit summary: "Sorry Steven, but you aren't notable enough for Wikipedia. Regards." DGG 19:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. I subscribe to the DGG theory that full professors at major universities are notable, and we should keep them even when the articles aren't well written. I added a link to his home page at UCI and an Arxiv search showing 47 submissions there (many of them republished in refereed journals such as Physical Review). This search link should eventually be replaced with a short list of notable papers, when someone has time to rewrite the article properly. EdJohnston 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Short list has now been done. There are another 73 articles in arXiv under a variation of his name. One of the shortcomings of their search engine is that it there seem not to be any name cross-references or links. (If there is a way, I haven't found it). DGG 03:56, 3 July 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.