Wikipedia:WikiProject Academics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This WikiProject is inspired by discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion of a minor academic, at which Robert Merkel pointed out the Wikipedia's pathetic coverage of Nobel Prize for Physics and Turing Award winners. If we are serious about matching and ultimately exceeding other encyclopedias, we should have articles for at least the winners of major global awards in their fields.

Contents

[edit] Title

WikiProject Academics

[edit] Scope

This WikiProject aims primarily to define a standard format for biographical articles about academic scientists, engineers, doctors, perhaps extending to the social sciences to some extent. As stated, it was inspired by the idea of providing at least minimal coverage of major award winners, but is not restricted to that - the debate over inclusion criteria is a separate issue.

A secondary aim of this WikiProject is to attract academics to wikipedia. If wikipedia is to become a highly regarded resource, it is going to have to involve the participation of experts in every field. One way to attract experts is to create articles that will be useful to an expert. For example, an authoritative list of contemporary sociologists might be useful to sociology researchers, even if the articles in wikipedia on each sociologist lack substantial quality. (See List of philosophers for an actual example.)

[edit] Parentage

[edit] Participants

[edit] Structure

Use the structure discussed in WikiProject Biography, where applicable. The following are additional guidelines:

Each major award should have a list of award winners linking to the individuals concerned, and each academic should be added to the [[list of <I>field</I>]] of the field (or fields) that they are prominent in.

If they have won a major award, the citation for that award should be included verbatim.

Biographical details should include the details of their education, particularly their PhD (if they have one). It may be noteworthy, for instance, who their supervisor was. A brief summary of their academic career, including their current posting if still active, should be included.

The article should ideally discuss their key publications and give an indication of their significance. A complete listing of their publications should not be included.

Other biographical details can and should be added as available - however, do not do your own original research to add such. Find material published elsewhere (and cite as appropriate).

If they have a home page, a link to that is appropriate.

[edit] Useful links

[edit] Hierarchy Definition

No classification of Biographies has been defined. See this example on dividing a topic into a hierarchy.

[edit] Academia Template

The {{Infobox Scientist}} as endorsed by the Wikiproject Biography is recommended. For an exemplaric use of the infobox, see for example: Carl Friedrich Gauss (featured article).

[edit] Deletion List

[edit] Useful links


[edit] Academics and educators

[edit] Mike Duriez

Mike Duriez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can find evidence that this person exists but no reliable sources (or any unreliable ones for that matter) to back up claims of notability enough to meet WP:BIO. [1] [2] [3] nancy (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. According to the article, the subject was a professor University of Edinburgh, but there does not seem to be substantial evidence of passing either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. I checked to see if spelling the first name as "Michael" rather than "Mike" changes any google results but that does not seem to be the case. A plain Google search for "Mike Duriez" gives just 5 hits[4], and for "Michael Duriez" 55 hits[5] that appear to be false positives. Similarly, in GoogleScholar one gets very little for either spelling [6][7] and the same for GoogleBooks[8][9]. Appears to fail both WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Duriez is referred to as a "tutor" in the Ptolemy Dean bio (User:PtolemyDean is the creator of the Mike Duriez bio). The addition of Duriez to the Dean bio was by User:Obscure items some of whose edits to that article have been reverted as vandalism, e.g. [10], others are clearly not serious [11] [12], note resemblance of these edits to User:PtolemyDean's [13]. I think this Bio is a hoax, and extension of vandalism/joke edit BSing on Ptolemy Dean.

[edit] Stan Neeleman

Stan Neeleman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just an average professor DimaG (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • speedy delete non notable professor, one sentence mini stub that clearly states his lack of notability, not sourced at all, not even a single external link...no brainer.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. See the references at this Google Scholar search. --Eastmain (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The foregoing link actually confirms that this person doesn't meet WP:PROF. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The newspaper references show that he was a pioneer in using computer technology in law. --Eastmain (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. On one hand he does hold a named chair appointment at a decent law school, which I ordinarily would consider a sign of academic notability (of course, law schools often have bigger endowments and more named chair appointments than other academic departments). On the other hand his scholarly record appears thin: Eastmain's GoogleScholar search returns a grant total of 5 hits and GoogleBooks does not return much either[14]. GoogleNews (all dates) search gives 5 hits[15], so there does not seem to be substantial coverage in conventional newsmedia either. It does not seem to me that the subject passes WP:PROF based on these results. He does appear to be an active practicing lawer, according to his faculty profile[16], which might explain a relative lack of academic impact. It could be that he is notable as a lawer under WP:BIO but a verifiable case for this has not been made. Nsk92 (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Named chairs at major universities are notable. Always. GS is not even remotely complete. But as Nsk says, given the relative length of time as a lawyer, from 72 to 05 along with the professorship, apparently an eminent tax & estate planning attorney. Now, this wont be visible in the case law, unlike trial or appeal lawyers, so there can be some difficulty proving it. I would thing that for a practicing attorney to b given a named chair at a major law school is an unmistakable sign of eminence in his profession. he apparently also served on some major government service roles, but I cannot totally decipher them from the sources due t o my unfamiliarity with the profession. DGG (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • keep per above. Happydazer (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Professor Sa'ad Medhat

Professor Sa'ad Medhat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is written like his resume, and is definitely advertising, his notability is also questionable. Google search: Sa'ad Medhat...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 17:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete Should have been deleted per my original G11 nomination. Clearly spam/vanity piece. ukexpat (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I declined the speedy. Article can be stubbed to remove COI/POV issues. The discussion here should focus on notability issues. Tan | 39 17:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Some guy's resume. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep and Move may be enough publications to pass WP:PROF. Should be moved per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) to remove his professional title from the article title. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you really want a copy-pasted resume to remain on Wikipedia? Baffling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • No, but AfD is not for clean-up. It probably means there's enough with which to write an article. I have no interest in doing so, but that's not a reason to delete. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
        • This would require a 100% word-for-word rewrite... oh, and a new title too. A cleaned-up version would be a whole new article, and even on the off chance that someone is up for it, there's no reason to keep the resume in history. Wikipedia is not C:/My_Documents Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
There. Now it's not a resume anymore. This conversation should be focusing on notability, not material that is easily deleted and sourced. Tan | 39 19:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep it would require gutting, which I was going to do, but someone beat me to it. Now just needs expansion. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:PROF. Eusebeus (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete the publications found by TravellingCarithe Busy Bee have hardly or never been cited (the most cited article has 5 citations). That's not even close to being notable. Unless the claim that this person single-handedly founded a new university can be substantiated, I don't see any evidence of notability. --Crusio (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep based on Travellingcari's findings. I added a source (a bad one, but it was the first I came across). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Hi. I'm the author of the original. So, obviously, I'm for keeping. I can understand that some may find the promotion of vocatonal skills in the UK (and beyond) somewhat esoteric. But the numbers of people involved and the amount of money make Sa'ad's work notable. He is widley quoted in the press and consulted by policy-makers and so his career is an important piece of information that many should be able to source from Wikipedia. As for doubts about him establishing Dubai University, this is well documented and recognised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weottelescope (talk • contribs) 07:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears to be a CV. --Ecoleetage (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It's nice that the author asserts accessibility of references, but I'm not seeing anything in the article to justify keeping it. Yechiel (Shalom) 17:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Articles for deletion archives This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Koh Siak Peng. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. 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.

[edit] Patrick Hunout

Patrick Hunout (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

there are no reliable third party sources, so notability has not been established in accordance with WP:BIO Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep This Google search reveals 2,400+ hits on him here There are ample third party sources on him; this Citizendium article even references a paper Hunout wrote here--see the first article. He's clearly notable enough. Artene50 (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The question is not whether people are referencing his article, but are people writing about him. Only the later gives us source we can use in the article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a strange case. According to it's website, it seems that the journal that he is involved with (The International Scope Review) has not appeared since 2006. The Web of Knowledge lists just one article by him, cited a grand total of 1 times (searching for "Hunout", so I cannot have missed articles because of additional initials, for instance). If I search for all citaions (i.e. also to works not themselves included in WoK), I find one additional citation to his thesis (by himself in the one article included in WoK) and one to an article in The International Scope Review. Most of the entries listed on the Google search linked by Artene50 are entries in Wikis (perhaps/probably made by the subject himself?) and networking sites (certainly made by the subject himself). Many references listed in the article are from the The International Scope Review and it is not clear how independent this is of him (the fact that he is on the Board and even its founder does not necessarily mean that his articles get in without any scrutiny. Any well-managed scientific journal will scrutinize articles from its editors as carefully -if not more- than those from other contributors to avoid the impression of favoritism. I am the founding editor of a scientific journal myself, so I know what I'm talking about....). Hunout has apparently also published several books, which might be notable, but it is strange that none of those have ever been cited in WoK. In short, the only serious reference brought up till now is the one to Citizendium, and the fact that they cite an article by Hunout does not really make him notable. Unless other sources would crop up, I'd probably go for delete, but will abstain for the moment. --Crusio (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. As no additional sources seem to be forthcoming, I am going for delete. --Crusio (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. His work on job evaluation is well known and has been used as source in academic programmes and courses. The Review he is involved in is very demanding and his conferences as well. The bibliography mentions several publications at third parties. So he is notable enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

— 62.235.215.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment Could you perhaps provide sources for the things you mention? If his works are used as text books in courses, that would establish notability, but there should be a way to verify that claim. The "Review" seems to be moribund. The current bibliography only mentions some works by himself and they don't seem to have had much if any impact. Perhaps I'm wrong, in that case, please present the evidence. --Crusio (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Crusio, unless more positive evidence to indicate notability under WP:PROF or WP:BIO is found. As Crusio said, WebOfScience shows precious little in the way of the subject't work being cited by other scholars. GoogleScholar also produces very few citations[17], with top hits of 4, 3 and 1. I am not seeing evidence of passing WP:PROF here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Closer examination of the Google scholar results makes the numbers look smaller: the "top hit" of 4 citations appears to be really one citation, in a paper by Frédéric Schoenaers, repeated 4 times. In addition I tried (by Googling "hunout syllabus") but failed to find any use of his works in the classroom. The closest I found was a false hit on a sociology class close to here which unrelatedly includes a web poll of top sociologists in which some respondent (perhaps Hunout himself) has added Hunout's name to a list of larger luminaries. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Do not delete. Crusio, you are mixing up several things. The Review is not moribund, does not publish every year unless it has appropriate (of sufficient high quality) material. New Editorial Board for 2008-2010 shows pundit names like Inglehart. If you look at other Wikipedia articles like e.g. Amitai Etzioni bibliography it is also made of their own works. The issue is not to list a large number of publications but visibility, and visibility is indeniable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hunout is the President of a NGO not a pure scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As for that link in Citizendium, it got there as a copy of the Wikipedia article at the time [18]. We have removed it long since, they have not yet done so.DGG (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Crusio, Nsk92, David Eppstein... Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't delete. The discussion must be fair. Saying that "Hunout added his own name" is badly intended. There is no evidence of that. He is not a pure scholar but a manager and a policymaker, and as such cannot be seen through the same criteria. Even so he published with Moscovici, who is the pope of social psychology. His next conference shows a very interesting line-up of contributors, which shows notability. Let's keep him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessika Folkerts (talk • contribs) 19:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

— Jessika Folkerts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Uh, what? Is it even ethical for us to do that? Ford MF (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can unearth a ref of substance. BLPs need to be absolutely the best sourced articles we have and this is far from that. Ford MF (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't delete. Those critiques may have hidden thoughts haven't they? The organization Crusio belongs to does not have a single reference, and the largest expert for social capital, Robert Putnam, who is world known, has only four, and a tiny bibliography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessika Folkerts (talk • contribs) 00:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC) note: 2nd !vote by this user in this AfD. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I made a research on Google and, limiting myself to the first 10 pages, I found a considerable number of references for Hunout. Hunout was cited, mentioned, published or commented by authoritative institutions, editors, libraries, institutions, authors, sites, and blogs. He was mentioned by the World Bank, who is the authority for social capital, the area of expertise of Hunout. He was called by Oxfam International to sign along with 50 other economists a call to the G8 Ministers to end poverty, which clearly shows notability regarding social inclusion. He is mentioned in the book "L'Europe ou le grand bazar de l'immigration", by CNAM, by the French Ministry of Justice, by the International Review of Social History (Cambridge University Press). In a 2007 speech to the Human Rights Equal Opportunity Commission, the speakers says "Social capital is a contested term that has been defined many ways although I like the simple version that it “...is a set of attitudes and mental dispositions that favour co-operation within society (that)… equals the spirit of community” (Patrick Hunout, Social Capital Foundation)." Hunout is quoted by Joel Alleyne in his paper on "social networks and social media" (2007). He is analysed by Answers.com, NationMaster and CapitalSocial.eu for his work related to civil society, communitarianism and social capital. He was referred to by National Bank of Brazil for his work with Ziltener on the euro and the advent of a new European Leviathan.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk • contribs) note also: that ip 62.235.215.231 (registered to Belgian ISP not far from Terhulpen, Belgium) copyedited Jessika Folkerts's last comment as well. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Pete, smells like socks to me. Nsk92 (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll file an RFCU (depending on outcome) after the AfD closes, if wants to start an SSP that's fine by me.c Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

There is a misunderstanding, I am the same user, voted only once, am responding to the arguments cited above. I am no expert at using this system. Let's stay by the facts, any arguments? And Nsk92, your expression isn't very encyclopedic. Jessika Folkerts

[edit] Mae-Wan Ho

Mae-Wan Ho (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article on a living person has sat since February 2006 without any reliable third party sources. Given her highly controversial opinions, that are argueabley pseudoscience, it's essential an article like this have substantial third party sourcing. Otherwise, it can only alternate between a hatchet job or a promo piece. --Rob (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, does "third party" mean "secondary source" as in "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources" or does it mean "tertiary source" as in "encyclopedias or other compendia that sum up secondary and primary sources". Are reliably sourced news articles or journal articles acceptable "third party" sources? Are her own reliably sourced books or journal articles acceptable sources to describe her own views? --EPadmirateur (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
"Third-party" means that Mae-Won didn't write it. Nothing she writes on her own can possibly establish her notability, regardless of who published it. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I vote for deletion and agree that this article can never amount to anything because the only stuff written about this person is either from herself or from non-reliable sources such as purveyors of alternative medicine or anti-GM activist publications. Mainstream science essentially ignores her pseudoscientific views. Ttguy (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • DeleteKeep as not having established notability through reliable third-party sources. This lack of reliable third-party sources means that the article has, at times, devolved into edit-wars over whether her CV substantiates fields of expertise claimed in her 'biographical sketch' (both sourced from the subject). There just isn't enough here for a solid article, let alone one that needs to carefully navigate a controversial subject. HrafnTalkStalk 06:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Nature article cited by Tim Vickers below meets the threshold of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". HrafnTalkStalk 08:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, because Mae-Wan Ho is notable by a number of measures. Third party citations have come and gone in the article that would support that. However, I doubt that any reliable sources or neutral presentation would be allowed by other editors. Since its inception, this article has served as a personal sandbox for a few editors who used it consistently to publish discrediting information about her, even after the material had been removed, and to remove or strongly dispute any positive information that might be put in it.
For example, User:Ttguy has used a set of favorite items for discrediting Mae-Wan Ho:
  • From the beginning through to the present, that she is a vivisectionist who likes to burn rabbits' eyes (and is therefore a hypocrite): [19] [20] [21] [22]
  • Also from the beginning, that she believes living organisms don't follow second law of thermodynamics [23] [24] [25]
  • that she has been involved in cloning humans and therefore a hypocrite [26] [27]
  • that she is a "AIDS denier" and the "treatment she recommends is selenium and other antioxidants" [28] [29]
  • that her claimed academic credentials are "inflated" and simple claims of what fields she worked in are false: [30] [31] [32] [33] Ttguy even has [his own webpage containing his personal analysis of Ho's credentials, which he uses in the article and in the talk to support the claim that Mae-Wan Ho's credentials are don't match her claims
  • that she may have been fired for incompetence from an academic position [34]
  • when positive or balancing information is added, it's removed usually for trivial reasons [35] [36], including the one third party reference that made it into the article [37]: why? because it was "POV"
Also User:Hrafn has disputed what should be non-controversial edits, for trivial or contrived reasons [38] [39] [40]
It's ironic that the first two editors to jump in and vote to delete this article are Ttguy and Hrafn.
So this is what WP:BLP allows: the unbridled two-year-long campaign to discredit a person's reputation, where deleted material is constantly re-added, and where honest attempts at balance and neutrality are smacked down to the point where the only thing left to do is delete the article. It would be impossible to add any reliable third-party sources to this article in good faith because, I'm afraid, they would be removed for trivial reasons within a day. I have no interest in Mae-Wan Ho or her positions but I strongly oppose the kind of editor POV pushing and bullying that is evident in this article. I asked in another place "is this the way WP is supposed to work for biographies of living people who happen to do something some editors don't like?" Hey, I guess so, and when it gets really bad, we just delete the sandbox. --EPadmirateur (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: If there has been substantial coverage in reliable third party sources that has been deleted from the article, then where are the difs? Please provide substantiation. All your other accusations are irrelevant to an AfD. HrafnTalkStalk 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • EPadmirateur , It seems you want a biography based only on Ho's writings. You were fine with my removal of negative material sourced to her research paper (like the eye buring), but you're happy to have positive things sourced to Ho. The problems with this article stem from the fact, there's no third-party reliable material to go off. So, all the editors inject their own opinions, because that's all there is: opinion. Wikipedians are left to debate what's relevant and notable about her self-claimed work. Wikipedias policy on deleting non-notable bios is actually in the best interests of the bio subject, who are most harmed by the inevitable original research that's conducted on them. It's unfortunate that this article wasn't deleted at the beginning. --Rob (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Not at all: I would gladly seek out reliable sources to provide information about her. However, I'm nearly certain that they would be removed for trivial or contrived reasons, as was done with the simple claim of what fields she has worked in. I thought that the policy for BLP was to provide balance as per WP:BLP#Criticism and praise and to avoid "biased or malicious content about living persons". If WP wants to permit POV pushing and bullying in BLPs as you seem to want to allow here, fine. Just let us all know, and by all means delete this article. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You are free to show us the reliable sources right here. Please also show the diffs of where an editor has removed a reliable source. --Rob (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I haven't searched for third party sources. Under the circumstances I don't much see the point. The two external sources that were removed mentioning Ho were deleted here.EPadmirateur (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[41] is an article on a blog where they have interviewed Ho. I dunno if this contributes to notablility or not Ttguy (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[42] tells us that Ho attended a meeting along with 1400 other people. Not sure this contributes to notability either. She is mentioned once in the article. Ttguy (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea how reliable these sources would be viewed but they are the only two that have been added. Ho is certainly controversial and influential as these two citations show and also here. Her work is cited in Meaning of life, in Black people, in Rupert Sheldrake#The Presence of the Past, in Horizontal gene transfer. Her name is listed on the List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" (original document here, page 2) and as writer on holistic science. She has 79 journal articles listed in PubMed. Those are 79 reliable third-party sources. Here are 13 articles or letters appearing in The Guardian about her or written by her. Here's a book review in New Scientist. Here's an interview, a lecture summary, a briefing to the European Parliament, etc. That's just for starters. I think there are dozens more third-party sources. What more do you want? How hard did the other editors try? --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You said "Those are 79 reliable third-party sources". Anything written by Ho is, by definition, not a third party source. I will review the other sources as much as I can shortly. --Rob (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Side comment: I think it would be a good idea of editors could go through the backlinks, and check how Ho has been used as a source in other Wikipedia articles. --Rob (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I think there are a couple of third party sources there that can be used in this article. I would also say that her own suitably published work can be cited as WP:RS when describing her ideas, as was the consensus recently in Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Self_published. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're what you're talking about. I wanted people to review the backlinks, where Ho is sometimes cited, since those should be removed or replaced by cites from recognized authorities. Ho is not a recognized authority in any field, and shouldn't be cited as such. Unless/until Ho is mentioned by a third-party, Ho doesn't belong on Wikipedia, anywhere. --Rob (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I think there are plenty of third-party sources (see above). She certainly has scientific credentials (see PubMed list above). But her notability comes from her controversial stances on a number of things, which can be reliably documented in third party news reports, interviews, etc. In addition, her own papers in reliable journals and books published by reliable independent publishers can also be used as a reliable sources for her own views (see the consensus recently in Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Self_published). --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Except (apparently) if these papers show her in a bad light (eg Burning rabbits eyes) - then these papers can not be used !!!! - right? Ttguy (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course, the experimental work on corneas can and should be used if it is relevant to her notability. Apparently even her AIDS denialism is not notable by the third-party source standard (I couldn't find anything), only her anti-GMO work. --EPadmirateur (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep this seems to be a very interesting person, she has some very interesting ideas, a whole lot of wrong ideas and possibly she doesn't always know what she's actually talking about. In addition, she seems to be somewhat hypocritical, and may in some contexts be considered a 'ho'. I've been somewhat rude, maybe I've made some overstatements, my apologies for that, probably not all she says is rubbish, it may in fact be very interesting to analyse how this woman has come to combine wisdom and knowledge with misinterpretations and other nonsense. Anyway, it should be the task of Wikipedia to clarify the whole mystery and controversy surrounding this person. 84.194.237.100 (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep apparently at least borderline notable as a scientist. About 60 published papers in peer-reviewed biology journals, cited reasonably according to Web of Science (GS is not helpful here, the papers are back in the 70s) Her papers on theoretical evolution in Journal of theoretical biology, a mainstream journal though in my opinion willing to publish pure speculation had 76, 65, etc citations. Some of her perfectly orthodox cell biology papers in good journals had 128, 71, 70. This counts as quite respectable. Her later work is not science, nor is it published by significant scientific publishers. However, it's widely noticed. I think it's deplorable, but it's notable. DGG (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable scientist with notable views on notable subject. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep a notably bad scientist. Not notable for their research or expertise, but the extreme opinions exposed by this person have gathered wide notice and a strongly negative reaction from their peers. See Nature news article for example. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Note - I've added some reliable sources criticizing this publication. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete and restart article Be very careful here. She is a very controversal figure, but no assertion of her non-notability should be credited without a review of just who is asserting it and with what motivations. Notably bad might be very accurate, but quite notably bad. Both User:Hrafn and User: TimVickers are busy using the talk page to skewer the subject of the article--apparently they think she needs assistance in that department. As the biography of a living person the article should be deleted and recreated with the personal attacks against her credibility on the talk page. --Blechnic (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree completely with DGG. Her views on GM crops are clearly wrong to me, but she's a notable opponent. --Crusio (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Off topic. I'm not ready to dismiss everything she says, but I have gotten rather tired of hearing her at times. I work in agricultural genetics, so I've probably heard a bit more than most. --Blechnic (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per TimVickers, DGG, Crusio. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The New Scientist and Guardian sources linked above show clear notability. It seems that some people have trouble understanding that a subject's notability is nothing to do with whether you agree with them or not. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tim Vickers. Ford MF (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zdzisław Kaczmarczyk

Zdzisław Kaczmarczyk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, can't use prod tag because an admin removed it (>O_o)> Something X <(^_^<) 15:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. There are many references to him through google. Most are not in English but he looks probably notable. I think this AfD is premature. The article is poor and just a stub and needs work. I would flag with {{{notability}}} at most. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't speak Polish, but here[43] I think you find a book describing his life. If he was notable enough in Poland to have a biography published, he's probably notable enough for Wikipedia. Somebody who speaks Polish should check this reference and, if possible, also add some material to the article, which really is nothing much. --Crusio (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In light of the discussion below: keep.
  • Keep author of about 30 books in polish--some held in over 40 US/UK libraries, which for a Polish author writing on Polish history, is fairly substantial. But the article really needs some information besides what's there. since everything's in Polish, someone else will have do do the work here. I would like to be a little more confident though about the publisher and nature of the bio. DGG (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG and Crusio. Passes WP:BIO based on the published biography, and seems to pass WP:PROF as well. There is a bit more info about the biography that Crusio mentioned at GoogleBooks:[44]. The publisher of the biography, "Wydawnictwo Poznańskie", seems to be well-established as well[45]. Nsk92 (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as director of an important academic institute, and prolific author of books held by academic libraries. Wydawnictwo Poznańskie is the publishing arm of the Adam Mickiewicz University (one of my Alma maters [or is that almae matres?]), so there's no need to doubt the reliability of the biography. I've picked out some biographical details from amongst the WP:PEACOCK language at the link found by Crusio and put them in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Academics and educators Proposed deletions