Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Mc Kevitt

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 Userfied as this is an autobiography. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mc Kevitt[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable academic -- the list of references shows no indication of secondary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per proposer. Might be possible to stubify this autobiography if notability is established. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 07:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of article is clearly very green, and unaware of wikipedia policy and process. He has engaged on his Talk page, and I'll try to explain. Have withdrawn my vote. (It appears that I have slightly messed with the formatting of this page. If you are competent, please feel free to correct!) -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this had come through AfC I would have had an embarasse de richesse in sending it back for more editing: large sections are un-referenced; it contains a lot of extraneous information (his former students); it doesn't demonstrate wp:academics; and the creator needs to study wp:rs to know that a LinkedIn page and the subject's own writings are not RS; and reads like a CV, not a WP article. Add to that that one of the authors is the subject himself, and others have admitted to COI here: COI:Paul Mc Kevitt. In terms of notability, he may be marginal -- his work is cited, but I don't see evidence of the kinds of significant awards or illustrious positions that would make that obvious. LaMona (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the nominator as well as being the person who originally nominated this for Speedy Deletion. GamerPro64 01:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:

Notable-academic (Professor Test wp:academics): Subject clearly satisfies the wp:academics Professor Test for notability; the article clearly demonstrates wp:academics under "Criteria" for notability on a number of fronts (conditions) and only one is required (QUOTE: ″Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable″....); in fact, the subject matches MOST of the 9 conditions for notability, not just one; Secondary sources which discuss the subject's academic work as a primary focal topic are included in the list of references such as e.g. the University homepage: http://www.ulster.ac.uk/staff/p.mckevitt.html http://academy.bcs.org/content/distinguished-dissertations-2013 (British Computer Society) (BCS) and recent newspaper article (Irish Times) http://www.irishtimes.com/sponsored/blis-where-imagination-meets-engineering-1.2340485 and University Convocation Executive: http://www.ulster.ac.uk/secretary/secretariat/convocation/convocationmembers.html; more are included under "Interviews"; even more are being added --c.f. a simple Google search on "Paul Mc Kevitt"

Notable-academic (Professor Test wp:academics): A reference link to Google scholar http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=U5bPoGgAAAAJ&hl=en (independent source by Google) has been added showing a list of ~200 peer-reviewed publications in international academic journals, conferences and books with associated citations: Google Scholar Citation indices All Since 2010; Citations 1744 1243; h-index 17 10; i10-index 34 11

Notable-academic (Professor Test wp:academics): More references are being added to ALL sections; the Research work of a Full Professor with his/her Ph.D. students is very relevant (NOT extraneous), particularly in the field of Computer Science; and if you care to look at/study other notable biographies (particularly in Computer Science) you will see that they ALL include research work with former Ph.D. students; how could one possibly be Editor-in-Chief of a key academic journal in the field (Artificial Intelligence Review, Springer) for 12 years (1996-2008) and publish 7 peer-reviewed books with key academic publishers (John Benjamins; Springer) and over 200 peer-reviewed publications in international academic journals, conferences and books and organise the key British (10th Anniversary AISB-1995) and Irish (AICS-97) conferences and 2 workshops at the main USA conference (AAAI-94) and the key international contest (23rd International Loebner Prize Contest, 2013) together with international invited keynote lectures in the field and international education & appointments (Ireland, USA, England, Denmark, France) and research paper, ″Digital image steganography: Survey and analysis of current methods″, ranking as second most downloaded article in the International Journal, ″Signal Processing″ (Elsevier) otherwise; link to LinkedIn page and social network pages are allowed if referring to the subject; --the creators have studied wp:rs and know that a LinkedIn page and the subject's own academic peer-reviewed writings are RS when backed-up with many other RS citations, patents, newspaper articles, press releases, interviews in relation to the subject's work described as a primary focal topic; the vast majority of the 57 Reference citations given in the article conform to wp:rs; how does it read like a CV any more than others' biographies ? --over 200 peer-reviewed academic publications and 3 peer-reviewed patents with RS citations is clearly NOT marginal nor is Google scholar: Citation indices All Since 2010; Citations 1744 1243; h-index 17 10; i10-index 34 11; as for significant awards/illustrious positions, these are also listed on the page:

Whilst at University of Sheffield, Mc Kevitt was awarded one of two 5-year UK EPSRC Advanced Fellowships in Information Technology (1994), the other being awarded to Jon Oberlander at University of Edinburgh, Scotland. The focus of the fellowship was research on integration of natural language, speech and vision processing.

--this is a significant award !

New Mexico State University Centennial Researcher Award (1988); New Mexico Legislature Research Fellowship (1986-1988)

--this are also awards ! Also, this too:

He was awarded (with Dr. Abbas Cheddad, Dr. Kevin Curran & Dr. Joan Condell) the Northern Ireland Science Park (NISP) 25K Awards, Hi-Tech category award (2009) for Steganoflage (SDW digital watermarking), [24] a demo of which can be seen here: Steganoflage

The article and its reliable sources clearly demonstrate the notability of the subject's academic work as well as the subject himself and, more importantly, subject as notable as 100s of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons already existing in Wikipedia -- Wikipedia must strive for a level playing field and equitability if it is to be considered a fair encyclopedic knowledge representation without prejudice...

REMINDER: Subject clearly satisfies the wp:academics Professor Test for notability; (QUOTE from wp:academics under ″Criteria″ for notability: ″Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable″....); in fact, the subject satisfies MOST of the 9 conditions for notability, not just one !! :)

Paulmckevitt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry Professor, I just spent a goodly amount of time browsing for sources and looking into the sources that are presented. While there are some reliable sources, these sources do not discuss the subject as a primary focal topic. University statements and releases that don't cover the person as a significant topic are even less an indicator of notability.

There's a lot of, for want of a better word, "stuff" that while academically interesting does not explain why he is notable.

Presenting awards does not make one notable. Simply receiving awards also does not confer notability unless the award is of significant notability that it receives substantial press outside of the field. There is no indicator as to why the awards received are of significance, except within the field of study. Without that sort of indicator, how can we assess notability?

The academic contribution section again doesn't impart notability unless the research has made some impact on the field.

Some looking about for Artificial Intelligence review reveals that the journal impact factor is on average fairly low when compared to, say,the Journal of Artificial Intelligence which has a consistent impact factor. In all, I just can't see how this article and its sources clearly demonstrate the notability of the subject. Blackmane (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2015 (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.