Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Steve Phillips

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 delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Steve Phillips[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly merge with an article on people with the longest amount of acronyms after their name. (Kidding). Seems to be non-notable, some better sources might change my mind, but I can't find any right now DRosin (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why is steve phillips less notable than michael pearson or john rushby who also appear on the same entry for dartford grammar school? 92.12.81.151 (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.81.151 (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are extremely reputable e.g the chartered institute of building and loughborough university are bona fide respected institutions. 92.12.81.151 (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.81.151 (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am Steve Phillips and i dont really want to be associated with a project that thinks Loughborough University or the Chartered Institute of Building are poor sources or that the CIOB International Research prize is not a prestigous award as per the notability criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. I would have been much more impressed by your reviewers if they had cited the WP:ACADEMIC criteria rather than with unreferenced remarks. Thank you.92.12.81.151 (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)92.12.81.151 (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.81.151 (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that sources are used for two separate purposes: verification and establishment of notability. Both of those sources are fine for verifiability but they don't automatically confer notability when they mention a person. It depends on what they say. We are not questioning the establishments by questioning whether the references confer sufficient notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. He certainly comes close with the government working party involvement. The prize helps a little bit too. I am not sure if it is enough though. It is a pity that this is getting so personal. Whether a person is notable in encyclopaedic terms or not is not meant to be a judgement on their worth as a person. Given that notability is borderline, I think we should respect his wishes if he really wants the article deleted. If so, I recommend to make the request by email to verify that it really is from him. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If kept, the article needs to be renamed as we don't use titles. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Rosin made this personal with his jibe about acronyms after a persons name. These letters are awarded as a result of an enormous amount of hard work and it is really disappointing to see them become the object of someone's derision. Surely the point is that if i am the subject of the article and i want it removed then it should be removed? 92.12.81.151 (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of the letters is a matter of the Wikipedia house style. It is not our style to list them all and DRosin was joking about that. I am pretty sure that he wasn't disparaging the qualifications behind them. It was just a dig at the writing style of the author, and a pretty mild one. I guess such things can be misinterpreted.

As regards deletion being a matter of the subject's choice, that is not true in general but such requests are often accepted in cases where the subject is of borderline notability. Subjects that are definitely not notable get deleted irrespective of choice and subjects that are definitely notable can not be deleted even if the subject requests it. (For example, a request from, say, a major politician or celebrity to have their article deleted would be denied, although they can request that inaccuracies or bias be corrected). I suspect that this article is going to be deleted anyway but if you want to formally request this you can find the contact address here. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point i am making is that Wikipedia has set out a list of criteria which defines notability. As far as i can see the references provided comply with the WP:criteria but if the reviewers dont then shouldn't they refer to the relevant criteria to illustrate non-compliance? To my mind that would be the correct way to process an editorial function rather than take a cheap shot at the writing style? If wikipedia wants to be considered a font of knowledge than they may like to consider acting in an appropriate manner. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.81.151 (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:If the article complies with WP's own criteria for notability then shouldn't the article be kept? and yes i am playing devils advocate here.92.12.81.151 (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that this comment was added by Steve Phillips himself (it is the same UP address as used by Steve Phillips in the comment above) is this not a conflict of interest? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Thats why i put i am playing devils advocate to indicate the conflict! Pls delete as hamiltonstone has given me the answers i was looking for with respect to your review process.Thank you.92.2.98.33 (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Delete. There are issues with regard to whether this has "received significant coverage" and whether it is in sufficiently independent sources. A number of the newsletters reporting the winning of the prize would appear to count Phillips as a student, an organisation member (eg. CIOB), prospective member etc. Given that the prize appears to be the only event attracting the coverage, i don't think this really meets the criteria for notability in any case. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The research has been published in a number of peer reviewed academic journals. Do these types of journals count as independent sources? a book was also published as a result of the work does the ISBN number count as proof of an idependent source? 92.12.81.151 (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The publication of research by Phillips in peer reviewed journals may assist in establishing notability for the subject of that research, but not for Phillips himself. See WP:ACADEMIC (though also note, as Phillips appears not to be a practicing academic, these criteria may be of limited relevance) hamiltonstone (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pls delete and thank you for setting out your review process it has been helpful.btw- i am a practicing academic. Steve Phillips. 92.2.98.33 (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep: isnt the CIOB International research and innovation award a prestigous international award? The Chartered Institute Of Building is certainly an establshed global organisaton and the award is,self evidently, international. Granted it is not the Nobel prize but the NP is surely the pinnacle not the benchmark. cockney dave/Cockney media (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the main contributor to the article in question, thanks for coming in to participate here. A response to your query: First, it appears not to be prestigious, outside the industry at any rate. I had not previously heard of it, and a google news search (one test of something's broader notability) turns up nothing of consequence. Second, if it were the only thing for which Phillips was known and referred to in reliable sources, then that would probably not establish notability. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for delay but i only just picked up my messages. Fair point I dont think the award would be of any interest to anybody outside of the construction industry. cockney dave/Cockney media (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am Steve Phillips....wait, not I'm not. But I can log on here anonymously and claim to be. Short of any verification, I'm not inlined to put much stock in the IP editor, who would have a clear COI issue if he is the subject. As for the delete, I don't see where he meets notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. That is why I tried to encourage him to use the contact address to make a formal request from a verifiable email address. I have no idea if he did. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2009 (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.