Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Liddle

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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Liddle

Stephen Liddle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Per WP:PROF, WP:BIO and WP:INDEPENDENT. Appears only notability is from The Periodic Table of Videos. Thid party sources cannot be found, as searched for on various mediums. ChaseAm (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Per above. — raekyt 21:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep – Jeez, ≤one hour 12 minutes old and already nominated? WP:POTENTIAL and WP:DONTBITE apply. – S. Rich (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

While true, I think that with there not being any secondary or third party sources, the potential just isn't there. Without references it can't be built up - at least properly. As far as biting the newcomers, that's certainly a concern here, it needs to be put in a suddle, encouraging way. Would you agree with that? ChaseAm (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination fails per PROF #3 – he's a Fellow with the Royal Society. – S. Rich (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell he's not a Fellow, but a "Royal Society University Research Fellow" which means he's received a grant under: http://royalsociety.org/grants/schemes/university-research/. They're VERY much different things. — raekyt 22:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

6 of one, half-dozen of ... He's a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry, and has gotten some nice awards. – S. Rich (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not "6 of one, half-dozen of" it's apples and oranges. It's like saying if you get a NSF grant your a member of NSF, completely different. Being a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry isn't a big deal, it's not an elected position, but one where you pay and your a member I believe. 23:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Info indicates he's not just a member, but a Fellow. So that'll work. – S. Rich (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Though he is indeed a fellow - the criteria for which is outlined here - he is not an honorary fellow. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Which appears as if you meet the requirements and pay the fee your a "Fellow." That's not what the criteria means by elected to fellowship position, where there's some sort of judging, limited admission, prestige. — raekyt 14:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! (Alas, I was mislead by the PROF #3 criteria, which could use clarification.) In any event, Randykitty has provided justification for keeping. Also, PTOV is getting international attention which will bolster retention justification under other criteria (which I am misreading as well). See: [1]. (And the article has POTENTIAL.) – S. Rich (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

He is the 2011 winner of the Sir Edward Frankland Fellowship of the RSC. I think I should point out that I created the article. Name1234567890 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Question Why the hurry to go to AfD? PROD would have been more logical... --Randykitty (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose it's because I prefer the discussion aspect of an AFD for this specific article. PROD would work as well, and may even help with biting the newcomers, but AFD has a minor edge to me in this situation. And apologies for the unprofessionalism of this AFD, this is actually the first one I've actually created, so criticsm definitely helps me for in the future ChaseAm (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Clear pass of WP:ACADEMIC#1: Web of Science lists 103 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals that have been cited over 1800 times (1898), giving him an h-index of 24. --Randykitty (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per Randykitty. '"ST Liddle" -wikipedia chemistry' on Google scholar also gets 861 hits. --Mark viking (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. A GS h-index of around 24 for "S T Liddle" gives a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Nominator should do WP:Before when making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC).

I don't see how just publishing papers meets criteria for inclusion, even with a high "h-index." Part of criteria #1 is that it's verifiable by independent reliable sources, which to me means secondary sources, which isn't his published papers. Without coverage in secondary sources, what kind of article can be expected beyond a list of published papers? Maybe I'm confused or what, but I don't see him meeting criteria for inclusion here. Is there precedent that h-index scores is all that is needed to meet criteria #1? — raekyt 11:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Most academics never reach an h-index of 24 in their whole careers. And there are over 1800 scientific articles that cite work done by Lidell. That establishes significant impact on his field (and this kind of reasoning is quite common in AfD debates of academics). --Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the stats of what he's published or his citations (although I'd like a clear definition/link to his actual h-index number?), I'm asking is it accepted policy that a high h-index ALONE is sufficient to meet criteria #1, without those pesky things called reliable secondary sources? If you're calculating an h-index by just doing some searches to get #'s yourself, then that's clearly WP:OR/WP:SYN.... — raekyt 14:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You can get the h-index very simply from the Web of Science, no need to calculate anything yourself. And it's basically just a short for saying that there are a lot of reliable sources out there that cite his works (almost 1900 in this case). --Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

A citation in a journal paper isn't nearly the same as a secondary source that is commenting on something. They're USUALLY just meaning the research was related in some way that the authors cited something from his paper, generally not much you can build an article from. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that there is no actual linkable policy that states a calculated h-index from Web of Science alone is enough to meet criteria #1? Since you seem to be skirting that issue? It may be very true that he's made SIGNIFICANT contributions to his field, in so much as meeting criteria #1, but some automatically calculated number behind a pay-wall I don't see as meeting the "as demonstrated in reliable sources" part. So, rather than just giving this number, why not links to actual articles? That review his research, papers, etc... even though it's broadly construed there still needs to be sources, not some magic number. — raekyt 14:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Also that doesn't say anything about WP:3PARTY. — raekyt 14:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not skirting anything. The h-index is explicitly mentioned (under citation metrics) in WP:ACADEMIC. As I said, "h=24" is short for "articles have been cited a lot of times". You can also obtain the h-index or citation counts from Google Scholar if you have no access to WoS (I just trust WoS more and am more familiar with it). In any case, the fact that a source is behind a paywall doesn't disqualify it in the least. As for the nature of citations, you're quite right about that. That's why we require many more of them than the 2 or 3 sources that GNG requires. Once you start measuring them in the thousands like here, you can be quite certain you're dealing with a notable person. If you want to change the practice of relying on citation data as a proxy for notability, be my guest and start a discussion at WP:ACADEMIC or wherever else you may think useful. --Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is an article that discusses one of his papers. Here is another one, although I'm not certain that it qualifies as secondary source. Name1234567890 (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This one is a good WP:3PARTY source, correction looks like a press-release from the university since it has no author and states from the university... — raekyt 17:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

We are getting a bit off-topic by discussing particular references. E.g., the issue is whether this particular article can be used in the Stephen Liddle article and thereby make the article better? But I do note that PhysOrg is a news service -- it reports that Science Magazine published the Liddle work. UoN may have given them the heads-up, but per [2] they vet the material. – S. Rich (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

But a press release is still basically primary... Doesn't mean it can't be used, but not ideal. — raekyt 00:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per notability as a scholar WP:PROF. Note to Nominator: You seem to be challenging not just this particular scholar but the whole idea of notability of papers and scholarship as grounds for notability. That's a case that would be better made at WP:PROF, not on one particular academic. There are many, many academics who are listed on Wikipedia on similar grounds as Stephen Liddle; so if you think these kinds of people are not notable because they do not have secondary source coverage in the NYT etc, then that's a question that would be better brought up at WP:PROF. --Lquilter (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thanks a bunch for the recommendation! ChaseAm (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually on closer examination it appears to be User:Raeky who is mostly making those arguments! --Lquilter (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - As per RandyKitty. Samwalton9 (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep I really don't like judging on h index alone. It's a very rough guide in two respects. First, the level of significance varies widely from field to field, depending on the density of publication in hat subject. The article on h-indexexplains this--it's a known and accepted and inevitable weakness of any form of citation analysis--if used as a global criterion, it has to be normalized across subjects to be meaningful. Another known weakness, is that it is insensitive to the difference between the widely publishing mediocre, and the truly important. an h index of 24 can mean 24 papers with 24 references each, or 20 with 24 references and 4 with 100 each. One is a routine scientist, the other highly notable. It has to be taken in connection with other measures. Although total cites to an author is a very crude measure, when used in combination with the h factor, it gives more meaningful information. Since 24 time 24 = 576, 1900 total cites normally indicates indicates that some of them must be considerably higher. or that there are an immense number of lower-cited papers (or both). And, if we actually looking (for convenience I'm using G Scholar, which everyone can see, we find citations, starting with the highest and descending, 165, 68 , 66, 56 , 55, 51 .... for half of which he was first author. that's not "famous", but is is definitely notable. (One of the problems with articles on academics is they are often written by those who do not understand the relevant factors, and i do not blame anyone who would look at the article as it appeared here and had strong doubts about it.) DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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.