Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William A. Tiller (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep per WP:KEEP 2c, "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion". —David Eppstein (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Tiller[edit]

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

I hope you'll forgive me for bringing this up again, but, quite simply, there don't seem to be sources for William A. Tiller, so I'd like to suggest we look at this again. Per WP:NRVE, Notability requires verifiable evidence. We don't have reliable sources we can use to write any sort of article, and none have been provided, and, so, despite the theoretical notability mentioned in the last AfD (which involved him having published a number of scientific papers), I can't see how we can have an article on him. But, maybe I'm wrong. If high-quality sources suitable for the article can be found, then this problem will have been dealt with. 86.** IP (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated this article for deletion less than two weeks ago and the outcome was a keep. Consensus can change, but not that quickly. I'm doubtful that he's notable, as all or most of the coverage seems to be trivial (and I would probably have voted to delete in the first AfD), but the repeated nomination might also qualify this for a speedy keep. Holding off for now. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's significant coverage of Tiller in The Payson Roundup. He's mentioned elsewhere, and has been a prolific author. I collected this information with less than ten minutes of searching, and not even looking at the last, recent AFD. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the Payson Roundup. Does this source meet our reliability & notability guidelines? Remember, the number of mentions does not count, we are looking for reliable secondary sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - There do not appear to be any notable, reliable sources which we can use. He certainly did publish a lot of papers back when he was a professor but there are no sources that indicate his work was considered important by his peers. Other than his appearance in What the Bleep, there's very little for me to justify keeping the article. Now that the article has been tidied up I am convinced that it's never going to be more than a low-importance stub. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per points raised in the last nomination, particularly AAAS Fellow, citations, news articles, etc. This is really incredible -- 86.** IP removed all of the evidence of notability from the article in this edit, then has the audacity to claim that the subject lacks notability. In particular, 86**IP removed the fact that Tiller is a Physics Fellow of AAAS because the reference (the AAAS web site itself) is not reliable. In that edit, 86**IP also wiped out uncontroversial and sourced biographical information about Tiller involving education and work history, removed reliably sourced commentary on Tiller's paranormal work in this book, reference to a book by Tiller published by Cambridge University Press and scholarly papers published in American Journal of Cardiology, Physical Review and Journal of Applied Physics, again because these are not reliable enough. Further, 86**IP removed a reliably sourced comment on Tiller's work here because it is "not mainstream". 86**IP also failed to respond to comments on the talk page that the books Tiller has written on crystallization are sourced here and here. Very nice "tidying up": if you remove all evidence of notability and evidence of academic credibility -- especially the most notable fact of appearance in What The Bleep -- you are bound to come to the conclusion that the subject is not terribly notable. --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable source appears to talk about his appearance in "What The Bleep", hardly a notable appearance then. The books you showed by small time WP:FRINGE publishers like Hampton Roads Publishing Company and North Atlantic Books are not reliable for much of anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The sources utterly failed WP:RS. I don't think I need to dsay anything more, because that was why I renominated it: because the discussion was about theoretical notability, but no reliable sources exist for what people want the article to say. 86.** IP (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In Google scholar 7 papers with over 100 cites, h-index of 24 passes WP:Prof#1. In view of its history this looks to me like a bad-faith nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Without any reliable sources that discuss him it seems like the article has no hope of expansion. All we have at the moment is a mention by some WP:FRINGE sources, some of which appear to be WP:SPS. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. There aren't reliable sources. It does no good to vote keep, but not show any reliable sources that can be used. You're basically saying "do the work I don't want to do, even though you say you've tried and it's impossible." 86.** IP (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. It was less than 5 days since the last AfD closed when this one was started. As EPadmirateur correctly points out, the substantiation for Tiller's academic qualifications was deleted by the nominator. The claim that Tiller's mainstream work is insignificant was shown to be false in the prior AfD and further contradicted by, for example, the 400+ GScholar hits for <tiller "science of crystallization> [1], and see Xxanthippe's post above. Evidence was also provided in the previous AfD of mainstream coverage of his more unorthodox activities going back to the 1970s. --04:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- We do not have sources that can be used to write an article. WP:NRVE means that any amount of theoretical notability doesn't matter if you can't write an article. 86.** IP (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and a {{trout}} for the nominator for removing sources based on WP:IDONTLIKETHEM and then nominating the article due to a lack of sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how the current sources are reliable. We have a book printed by North Atlantic Books who print, amongst others, conspiracy theories, homeopathic medicine, shamanism, Martian mysteries and alternative medicine etc. We have this website [2] being used as a source which isn't reliable for anything. We also have this source, which doesn't even seem to name William Tiller in it [3]. The sourcing is a complete joke, far from reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS. 86.** IP (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep "I hope you'll forgive me for bringing this up again" - well, no, sorry, but I won't. Such a rapid renomination after your first AfD produced an outcome that you didn't like is both pointy and disruptive. If you believe the first AfD was improperly closed or the closer did not take all arguments into account then you should take it to WP:DRV. If everyone whose nomination resulted in a "keep" decision behaved like you have, then AfD would be a farce. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. It's crucial to remind ourselves that the analysis on Tiller's notability is grounded in what WP's established policy's are, specifically in this case WP:PROF. Tiller conclusively passes at least 2 of WP:PROF's tests, #1: his WoS h-index is 28 (~2900 total citations), which is far and away above the usual h-index of around 15 or total citations of a few hundred, and #3: AAAS Fellow, the AAAS being the world's largest general scientific society. You may have arguments for/against some of his other activities, but it matters not whether he is notable for those because he separately passes PROF and that alone is sufficient for this article to exist. If there are concerns about sources to flesh-out the article, then leave it stubbed for now. In other words, the article's content may be debatable, but it's existence is not. This discussion will certainly end in a "keep" and I hope it is not seen here at AfD again. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You have said nothing to address the complete lack of reliable sources which appears to be the basis of this re-nomination. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources", as this term is used in the nom, relate to WP:GNG. If that were the only way Tiller could pass, I would agree with you 100%...but it is not. This person very clearly had an extremely distinguished academic career, as demonstrated by a gigantic record of papers and an enormous citation record. Those citations are the "sources", as that term relates to WP:PROF #1. Of course, here, those sources only prove notability (which is why this Afd will end in "keep"), but don't necessarily say much about Tiller. That is why I suggested stubbing, which is a perfectly acceptable resolution. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Let me add that I agree with your comments above. Much of the "new age" stuff should stay redacted, since the sourcing appears to be absent. But, as I said, the sourcing for his academic work is solid. Hope that clarifies my argument. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The problem is the lack of sources with which to create an article. It should be demonstrated that this is addressable (which is why I hold off on voting for the present). If we don't have sources to say much of anything then the article is doomed to stubdom. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should stay on topic: "doomed to stubdom" is totally unrelated to whether the subject is notable. The latter is the only question here. Agricola44 (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Actually no it's completely relevant. I suggest you read WP:ACADEMIC where it notes: It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for an article in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability. We have such a lack of reliable, independent sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Tiller was evidently also a Guggenheim Fellow, which satisfies WP:PROF #2. So, it would seem he now passes PROF criteria 1, 2, and 3. It's piling up and I'll rest my case. Feel free to continue arguing insufficiency of sources, though. Agricola44 (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Over 200 grants of a modest amount ($40k) are given out each year. That doesn't help meet criteria 2. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, does anybody here have a typical idea of how many citations we might expect from an average engineering or physics professor? My understanding is that if you are a professor you lead a research-group which means your name goes on everything your department publishes. It's like being a middle-manager in a research institution. I'm trying to work out of 2900 citations is a notable number or kind of what you'd expect for anybody who plays the role of professor in a big enough institution? --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said above that 2900 citations and h-index 28 are very large (and these are WoS statistics, not GS). If you're not willing to take my word for it, you'll have to look back in the academic's AfD archives. There, you'll find numerous cases establishing the precedent that the hurdle is roughly h-index of 10-15 or a few hundred citations. Agricola44 (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You are still dodging the main issue which I highlighted above. Showing his h index is large doesn't magic some reliable sources into existence to actually create the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:59, 4 April 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.