Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tudor Rickards

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. I note that all comments by established users favoring deletion preceded significant improvements in the article, and that two of the established users initially favoring deletion changed their position to "keep" after reviewing the revised article. John254 06:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor Rickards[edit]

Conflict of Interest, Original Research Ponty Pirate (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Also forgot to mention that the article is completely un-referenced. Ponty Pirate (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Er, it does have a lengthy Notes section... – ukexpat (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11, so nominated. This reads like a curriculum vitae/resume ukexpat (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Changing to ~~Weak~~ Keep: Article is now a stub and reliable sources ~~must surely exist~~ have been added to support claims of notability. – ukexpat (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC), – ukexpat (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ It is was promotional and indeed the very model of an over-enthusiastic cv. — Athaenara ✉ 17:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC) (see my comment directly below)[reply]

Keep now that it's a well-referenced starter article. — Athaenara ✉ 02:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the admin who declined the speedy deletion, this is a borderline G11 and A7, a skeinishly built-up CV. Half the sources are by the subject, the text mostly promotes his career and his notions about marketing and creativity. No evidence this meets Wikipedia:Notability_(people). Gwen Gale (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So far as I can tell, none of the footnotes qualify as reliable sources: statements of fact are supported with reference to works written by Richards himself, while the other notes simply establish that some of his students/mentees/affiliates have published something — they're not about Richards. All I could find on Google was various self-promotional websites. Non-notable person. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 00:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not so fast Wikicourt, not so fast. This is one of those cases where we have to be careful about jumping to conclusions based on COI appearances. Tudor Rickards easily qualifies as notable under WP:PROF. Apparently he was one of the founders and editor-in-chief of an established academic journal, Creativity and Innovation Management, carried full-text on Business Source Complete (BSC), which qualifies him as notable under WP:PROF criterion 8. The journal even gives a Tudor Rickards Best Paper Award every year. A Worldcat search returned 66 hits; some of these books were with prestigious publishers, such as Wiley. The most widely held book, Stimulating Innovation (1985), was in 254 libraries worldwide. A BSC search returned 50 hits.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Criterion 8 of WP:PROF says that a professor is notable if s/he was the editor-in-chief of a major, well-established journal, the idea being that such a position is a sign of recognition by the scholarly community. Journals that a person founds on their own would not signal the same sort of recognition, especially if the journal was a minor one. Could somebody in the field attest to how well-established/respected Creativity and Innovation Management is? A connection to a minor journal would not satisfy #8. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 05:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The journal was founded in 1992 and has been published since then. It is now published by a major academic publisher, Blackwell Publishing. The editorial board is from all over the world; including some very prestigious institutions. This journal is certainly enough for WP:PROF criterion 8.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. I'm sorry, but that sounds like most journals. As I understand #8, founding a journal that went on to be viable does not suggest notability; rather, recognition by the community by being asked to head a "major well-established journal" does. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even if the guy is notable per WP policies, the article can still qualify for deletion on the grounds that it is promotional - that was my view, knowing nothing about the guy when I read the article, and the reason for my G11 tag. – ukexpat (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it hard to believe anyone who reads this entire article would decide to keep it. But hey that's my opinion and thats why its up for discussion I suppose. Ponty Pirate (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I left a message on the article's discussion page, and also on the article editor's discussion page, suggesting rewriting and trimming the article. Henry Mintzberg seems like a good model for follow. Indeed, right now this article is a magnet for requests for deletion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The editors who are attempting make a positive contribution to Wikipedia with this article have no doubt stumbled about a bit, and I think we can all agree to that. But it is because they are new. They openly express a desire to learn the right way to go about things here. Eric Yurken has done his homework and shown that Tudor Rickards is notable enough to merit an article. Kudos to ukexpat who, after recommending the article for summary execution, offered to assist the one of the editors, Alex Hough, on the proper way to write an article. Hammersbach (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am now taking the advice offered and trimming down the entry and make it less promotional. Thank you, it has been an interesting introduction to Wikipedia. I am really pleased that there are people who care about entries and can see that being a Wikipedia guy offers some real learning experiences. --Alexhough (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC) — Alexhough (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: The SPA signature template is a little unfair here - this is Alexhough's first article, and he/she is commenting here perfectly appropriately. – ukexpat (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Spa}} tags are intended to be helpful to neutral and uninvolved editors and admins who review AfDs. Hough (who works/worked with Rickard: see e.g. here) has been clear since his first edit (diff) that his is a single-purpose account. — Athaenara ✉ 19:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletepromotional, vanity. looks like a CV. Can it not be speedied? 84.13.129.44 (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC) — 84.13.129.44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. I think the article demonstrates merit, as noted above Rickards potentially qualifies as notable, but the article itself possibly demonstrates a lack of understanding of the nuances of Wikipedia style and etiquette, the comparison with the Mintzberg entry is illuminating, and the offer by ukexpat to help the editors seems like a positive way forward. Keep and amend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.251.213 (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC) — 89.242.251.213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep sorry, notability is pretty easy to determine here, coi is not a reason for delete, it is a reason for cleanup.--Buridan (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about notability is easy to determine? RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

general notability as per citation/publication in news media is what i checked.'does the media think he is notable?' seems to be yes to me.--Buridan (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has now been changed to a stub and is acceptable to keep. I think you should all put the page on your watch lists to give assistance to the editors in future. I am the nominator Ponty Pirate but I am on a WIKIBREAK (you can check to verify this) so cannot log in. I just want to tie up this last loose end. See you all sometime in the future. 78.145.174.100 (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2008 (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.