Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F. X. Reid

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

F. X. Reid[edit]

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

First tagged as non-notable in 2008; renewed in April 2011 with another tag saying references are unsatisfactory. There has been no improvement since then. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added references to four published books that mention F. X. Reid to demonstrate notability. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with the so-called supporting references to that article is that most are works published or put online by Reid himself (or his university colleagues) and these do not count as evidence of notability. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note for information that none of the references have been put online by "Reid" himself. Only ref [6] has been put on by a colleague. "The Song of Hakawatha" has been independently published in a book. There are four independently published books referenced (two by Shields, two by others) and selected articles in an ISSN publication. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsatisfactory and false information: I apologise for not being more specific about my objections from the start. For the sake of further clarity, User jpbowen is the author of the article and also a former editor of FACS FACTS which has published some of FXR's material in the past. Of the references given, item 1, 2 and 4 are by Shields/Reid. It should be noted that as an academic he is expected to publish, so simply doing his job is no proof of notability. Items 3 and 5 are from FACS FACTS (item 5 is a piece of silly facetiousness); I wonder whether material that the author of the article was responsible for publishing is admissible as evidence. Item 7, which is supposed to be evidence of "The Song of Hakawatha" being published is no such thing. Do another search at • • ^ Google Books and you find it is a mere mention in the text and was discovered by its compiler on the university blog cited as the 6th reference. To double-check, I typed two lines from the 'poem' into the search feature and drew a blank. What may appear to be stronger evidence of the poem's notability is a reference in Webster Online but a closer look reveals that this too has been lifted from Wikipedia. The poem is not attributed to Reid there in any case and no references are given. Given the questionable nature of the references in the article under discussion, I am not inclined to accept the 8th item unless I know what the publication cited actually says. It may be only a bibliographical reference in a footnote, which is no indicator of notability either. Reviewing the evidence, one may be led to believe that the WP article is manufacturing a reputation for its subject without adequate basis. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note for information, I am not associated with F. X. Reid and I have never edited any of his pieces. I do know of his reputation, which is high in many computer science circles, specially in the UK. Note that this entry is under computer humour rather than serious computer science, so one would expect and hope for some "silliness". I stand by the references, which are largely in reputable publications. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final note before I move out of wi-fi contact. Firstly, apologies to the article's author; I saw from his WP entry that he was part of a FACS team and assumed he was an editor but now see that it is something else he edits. Then thanks to him for clarifying the intent of his article and so weakening his case. If it is about 'computer humour' then, of course, references to academic publications outside the field of humour are neither here nor there and the debate boils down to whether "The Song of Hakawatha" is notable as both earlier drafts of Bowen's article and 'Reid' himself claim it is. In fact the parody has never seen publication either in the UK or the USA. It has only appeared on the personal page of someone at Strathclyde University and most other mentions cite that as source or else the Wikipedia article currently under question. What is being debated here is whether a limited niche interest constitutes notability in WP terms, and whether WP itself should be used to manufacture such an interest. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's see where we are with sources.
- This book is not sufficient as a secondary source; Reid is called an "esteemed colleague," which raises serious questions about the author's independence. Should be discounted on that basis.
- This poem in a book is a primary source; it's Reid's own work. Can't be relied upon to establish notability.
- Contributions to FACS FACTS and his obituary there can't be considered as indicative of notability because of Reid's close association with it.
- The mention in this book appears to be a mere listing of his name without any context or coverage.
- There's no coverage of either "F.X. Reid" or "FX Reid" that turns up in Google News.
- The books mentioned above are the full extent of his mentions that appear in a Google Books search.
These, I argue, do not collectively meet the WP:BASIC or WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR requirements, since there's simply not enough independent coverage in reliable sources. There's some coverage, but it's not independent of Reid. I would normally suggest a redirect or merge to the man's real name, but it appears he isn't notable either. Delete unless other people can turn up more substantial coverage than this. --Batard0 (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Batard0. There is not enough WP:RS information from which to develop the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Batard0. not notable. OfficeGirl (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources. Suggest that interested parties may ask for a WP:REFUND and recast the article in terms of WP:PROF. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:19, 5 November 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.