Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore H. Okiishi

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The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore H. Okiishi[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:BLPNOTE and WP:AUTHOR. Okiishi book is not meet the 4 noteworthiness requirement for Creative professionals. The attempt to apply the creative professional rules to Okiishi totally misses the point. He is an academic, not a creative professional. He is also not notable for his work in the LDS Church. There have been hundreds of bishops, counselors in a stake presidencies, stake patriarch and "presidents" of LDS Missions, none of which have pages, unless they were noteworthy for other reasons. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This editor has ignored the fact that Okiishi was a top ranking scientist and administrator at Iowa State University. That is why he is notable, because of the positions he had at Iowa State University. Beyond this, the nominator is using unjustified attack quotes, and does not even understand what Okiishi's position is. He is a temple president, and with articles on people like Stephen L. Chipman we actually do have articles on people whose most notable position may be by some summary temple president.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okiishi's most cited work was cited 179 times. I do not know how that goes for mechanical engineers, but to call him a "creative professional" indicates the person who brought the deletion nomination did not even consider him in the right light.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ How is putting something in quotes an attack. Where is is work cited 179 time? If he is so notwory becuse of his book, why dosn't the page list the title of the book instead of saying "He wrote a major textbook on fluid dynamics". If you put that information on the page, I would never have suggested that it be deleted. The pages as it is fails to show how he is notable, and fails to meet the 4 noteworthiness requirement. Other then being the "presidents" of LDS Missions, and "presidents" is a title that is totally appropriate to put in quotes, the page doesn't meet noteworthiness requirement. Rather then complain how I put something in quotes, why not improve the page to show how he is noteworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARTEST4ECHO (talk • contribs) 16:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And yes I know what a Temple President is. My Mom works at the Los Angles Temple. WP:Assume good faith and not assume I have some issue with Mormons.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that you use the term bishop without quotes but won't write out mission president makes it clear that there is something going on other than it being a term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fact that you assume I have some other motive that following WP policy gose against WP:Assume good faith. I have no issues with anything Mormon. If you asked around, I am one of those who work hard to keep Mormon related pages withing WP:POV guidelines all the time. Just because you don't like something someone dose, doesn't make it an attack.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I guess maybe I overreacted. Still, the use of quotes is generally a way to marginzalize a reference. If you are going to say "There have been hundreds of bishops" then you might as well just say mission presidents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first link on google scholar is to his work that has bee cited 179 times. You also continue to ignore that he was a major figure at Iowa State. He is not a creative professional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 179 citations is the top listing in google scholar. People should look at google scholar for academics, especially ones in the hard sciences. The listed issue for Okiishi is really at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I would argue he has made enough contributions to the study of fluid dynamics to be notable, and may have also held a high enough position at Iowa State to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then change the page, cite him. I don't want to delete the page if it doesn't need to be. The page as written when I AFD it, didn't say any of what you are claiming.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources that exist establish notability even when they're not in the article. -- 202.124.73.20 (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 202.124.74.7 (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:PROF. Subject has coauthored a standard text (Fundamentals of fluid mechanics) cited 1,880 times according to GS. Nom pretty much admits not having done a WP:BEFORE. -- 202.124.73.20 (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have struck out a redundant unsigned "delete" !vote by the nom. -- 202.124.73.20 (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As well as his book, his Fellow status meets WP:PROF #3. -- 202.124.74.7 (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Now that the author has bothered to put down the name of the book and address the notability issues, I am happy to keep the page. However, if you look at the page when I nominate it, none of this information was there. It is the page creator's responsibly to establish notability before he creates the page.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 11:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Evidence of passing WP:PROF was in the NASA bio link which existed when the page was nominated. -- 202.124.74.24 (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close requested. Nominator has withdrawn and all !votes are "keep." -- 202.124.74.24 (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WoS shows >300 citations to his work, a large number for a very mature research area like fluids. Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics is a standard text used in undergrad ME programs. Agricola44 (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2013 (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.