Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Vicenzino

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. Consensus that the subject meets NPROF and potentially also GNG. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Vicenzino[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP has done some interesting research (e.g., tennis elbow is best treated with physical therapy exercises, not cortisone shots) but none of the sources I could find do more than quote him. It's not possible to write an article about him that is WP:Based upon the WP:Independent sources, when the independent sources don't talk about him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Scholar citation counts [1] show a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 and "Chair in Sports Physiotherapy" [2] probably also passes #C5. There is no shortage of primary-sourced but adequate material for factual claims about him; secondary and independent sources are not needed here (they are part of the wrong notability criterion, WP:GNG, not part of WP:PROF). But even if it were needed, his research also has plenty of mainstream media coverage [3] [4] [5]. That coverage is of what he is notable for having done, not the sort of coverage of his romantic history or taste in restaurants as we might expect for celebrities not notable for having done anything, so the nomination statement looking for celebrity-like coverage is so far off-base that this could be a speedy close. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking of the GNG. I was thinking about how to make the article comply with Wikipedia:No original research, specifically "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". Secondary sources are needed to comply with that policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @WhatamIdoing: If the University of Queensland, in their official profile page for him, calls him "Chair in Sports Physiotherapy", then there can be no reasonable doubt that he is Chair in Sports Physiotherapy at the University of Queensland. Bureaucratic requirements for independence are both unnecessary for verifiability and are counter to the explicit wording of WP:PROF, which states "For documenting that a person has held such an appointment (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution is a major one), publications of the appointing institution are considered a reliable source." Or to put it another way: you are making up requirements that do not exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  NOR does not require Wikipedia:Independent sources. NOR requires WP:SECONDARY sources. Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent.
  
  I'm not asking whether the individual facts are verifiable. I'm asking how you can write a bona fide encyclopedia article without secondary sources. Secondary sources analyze the subject, evaluates his work, or places him in the larger context, and that's what an encyclopedia article should do. If you give an editor exclusively primary sources, and you prohibit editors from doing their own original research to evaluate the subject, then you can't really write more than a Who's Who-type listing, which is IMO not an encyclopedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  That's a fine speech, but the article already has five in-depth secondary sources that analyze the subject's work and put it into context (two book reviews and three mainstream media articles). Probably you can find more among the 20,000 sources citing his work counted here that are sufficiently analytic to meet your requirements. There do exist very rare articles whose subjects pass WP:PROF#C1 but where we don't have enough sources to say anything more than "their work has been heavily cited"; this is not one of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many papers with 100s of citations, including several as first/last author (in a field where that matters) gives WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.