Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Abbott

Add links
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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 19:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Abbott[edit]

Derek Abbott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A writer who fails both WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. There just isn’t any WP:RS to indicate notability. A “hang-on” comment appeared six years ago [1], and we've been waiting 72 months now for the non-existent sources to be provided. His self-published, non-notable book is concurrently up for deletion as well [2]. There is a COI report here [3] on both of these promotional articles. Both articles have also seen dramatic sock involvement [4], so I would caution all commentators--as well as the closing admin--to look very, very carefully at any accounts making Keep arguments. Qworty (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, promo spam sockfarm involved here WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bunzil with likely conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Wickedictionary_and_Derek_Abbott. See also AFD for vanity publication Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wickedictionary. — Cirt (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Please see also deletion discussion at Wikiquote, q:Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Derek Abbott (2nd nomination). — Cirt (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject seems to pass WP:PROF. Whether there has been sock involvement is irrelevant to that. The discussion at Wikiquote is irrelevant, as the issue there is mainly the quotability of his quotes.--Collingwood (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Subject fails WP:NOTE, fails test of significant coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm unclear what point is being made. If he passes WP:PROF, there is no need to prove notability under other heads. He passes on two grounds. He is a full professor (in the British sense) so must hold either an established chair or a personal chair. He "has been an author of highly cited academic work"; his paper "A review of 3-D packaging technology" has 230 citations.--Collingwood (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where is the source confirming the first point? — Cirt (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the article: Who's Who in South Australia, Ed. Suzannah Pearce, Publ: Crown Content Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia, 2007, p. 1, ISBN 978-1-74095-142-5; it is also confirmed by the University. No Australian university would use "Professor" in hte American sense.--Collingwood (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let's have a better secondary source than "Who's Who", please. LOL. — Cirt (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • LOL!!! Always good to inject a bit of levity!--Collingwood (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks significant coverage by multiple secondary sources.--Hu12 (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a valid argument. Since the subject passes WP:PROF, there should be a KEEP. Even if he fails other notability criteria, this would not be grounds for deletion.--Collingwood (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nobody passes WP:PROF or any other biographical guideline without multiple secondary sources. Is this your idea of such a source [5]? Go ahead, read it. He thinks very highly of himself. And according to all of the available sourcing, he's the only person in the world who does. Qworty (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please read WP:PROF. "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. ... The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." There is no indication that "multiple secondary sources" are needed to confirm that he is a professor. His entry in the University's official directory is surely enough.--Collingwood (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Merely having an an unverified and unsubstantiated staff profile, which he himself wrote, doesn't confer notability.--Hu12 (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Are you seriously suggesting that a staff profile on a university web site is not a reliable source for the position held by its subject? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flawed reasoning. He doesn't pass WP:PROF. Contrary to what is alleged above, there is no evidence whatsoever that he holds "a named chair appointment." Nor does WP:PROF mean that an academic is notable for having written ONE paper, as is absurdly argued above. Qworty (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a straw man argument. Nobody has said that that is the only paper that Abbott has written and nobody has claimed that his writing of papers confers notability. It's the citations to his papers that are the independent reliable sources required to establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as he is an IEEE Fellow and in so being passes WP:PROF#C3. With an h-index of 35 and seven papers with 100 or more citations in his Google scholar profile, he is also well above the usual threshold for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (after edit conflict) Keep. I do not agree with the claim above that Abbott passes WP:PROF criterion 5. That is for positions higher than that of full professor (and yes, I am aware of the differences in the way the word "professor" is used in different countries). However Abbott clearly gets through WP:PROF criterion 1 based on the thousands of citations to his work linked from here (click on the numbers in the "cited by" column to list them individually), the vast majority of which are independent reliable sources confirming the subject's impact in his academic discipline. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at the actual source for the IEEE [6]. This "fellowship" is nothing more than a professional organization with thousands of members. This is hardly a source to establish notability. Qworty (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • IEEE fellowship (not membership) is, and has been for years, specifically listed in WP:PROF as satisfying notability guidelines. Please stop and consider whether your initial prejudice against this article may have been mistaken, rather than argue with every piece of evidence produced to support notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Derek_Abbott&oldid=1076168058"