Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Abbott: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Collingwood (talk | contribs) →Derek Abbott: This is not a valid argument |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia|list of Australia-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Grahamec|Grahame]] ([[User talk:Grahamec|talk]]) 02:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)</small> |
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia|list of Australia-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Grahamec|Grahame]] ([[User talk:Grahamec|talk]]) 02:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)</small> |
||
*'''Delete'''. Lacks significant coverage by multiple secondary sources.--[[User:Hu12|Hu12]] ([[User talk:Hu12|talk]]) 06:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Delete'''. Lacks significant coverage by multiple secondary sources.--[[User:Hu12|Hu12]] ([[User talk:Hu12|talk]]) 06:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
** This is not a valid argument. Since the subject passes WP:PROF, there should be a KEEP. Even if he fails other notability criteria, this would not be grounds for deletion.--[[User:Collingwood|Collingwood]] ([[User talk:Collingwood|talk]]) 07:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 07:16, 28 October 2012
- Derek Abbott (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)
A writer who fails both WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. There just isn’t any WP:RS to indicate notability. A “hang-on” comment appeared six years ago [1], and we've been waiting 72 months now for the non-existent sources to be provided. His self-published, non-notable book is concurrently up for deletion as well [2]. There is a COI report here [3] on both of these promotional articles. Both articles have also seen dramatic sock involvement [4], so I would caution all commentators--as well as the closing admin--to look very, very carefully at any accounts making Keep arguments. Qworty (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, promo spam sockfarm involved here WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bunzil with likely conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Wickedictionary_and_Derek_Abbott. See also AFD for vanity publication Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wickedictionary. — Cirt (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Note: Please see also deletion discussion at Wikiquote, q:Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Derek Abbott (2nd nomination). — Cirt (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The subject seems to pass WP:PROF. Whether there has been sock involvement is irrelevant to that. The discussion at Wikiquote is irrelevant, as the issue there is mainly the quotability of his quotes.--Collingwood (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Note: Subject fails WP:NOTE, fails test of significant coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm unclear what point is being made. If he passes WP:PROF, there is no need to prove notability under other heads. He passes on two grounds. He is a full professor (in the British sense) so must hold either an established chair or a personal chair. He "has been an author of highly cited academic work"; his paper "A review of 3-D packaging technology" has 230 citations.--Collingwood (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Where is the source confirming the first point? — Cirt (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- In the article: Who's Who in South Australia, Ed. Suzannah Pearce, Publ: Crown Content Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia, 2007, p. 1, ISBN 978-1-74095-142-5; it is also confirmed by the University. No Australian university would use "Professor" in hte American sense.--Collingwood (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Let's have a better secondary source than "Who's Who", please. LOL. — Cirt (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- In the article: Who's Who in South Australia, Ed. Suzannah Pearce, Publ: Crown Content Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia, 2007, p. 1, ISBN 978-1-74095-142-5; it is also confirmed by the University. No Australian university would use "Professor" in hte American sense.--Collingwood (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Where is the source confirming the first point? — Cirt (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm unclear what point is being made. If he passes WP:PROF, there is no need to prove notability under other heads. He passes on two grounds. He is a full professor (in the British sense) so must hold either an established chair or a personal chair. He "has been an author of highly cited academic work"; his paper "A review of 3-D packaging technology" has 230 citations.--Collingwood (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Lacks significant coverage by multiple secondary sources.--Hu12 (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a valid argument. Since the subject passes WP:PROF, there should be a KEEP. Even if he fails other notability criteria, this would not be grounds for deletion.--Collingwood (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)