Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Good

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. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Good

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable statistician, article created by an WP:SPA. Last paragraph is essentially advertising. Tercer (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tercer (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and California. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, AfD is not clean-up. The subject is the author of multiple textbooks in his subject, textbooks that have been independently reviewed.[1] Some of his texts have run to multiple editions over considerable periods.[2] By all means delete anything that's promotional and reformat to make the text more appropriate, but deletion is inappropriate. Elemimele (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being a co-author of a textbook that has received a single review is very thin gruel. Now being the sole author of a textbook that has received many reviews and editions is much better, but still not enough if that's everything he's done.

I did check the 3 papers that are mentioned as his "selected publications", and they are not at all well-cited. this has 115 citations, which is rather little for medicine, and he is anyway only one coauthor of a long list of authors. this has 6 citations, which is almost nothing even for statistics, and this has 7 citations. Tercer (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep very thin mentions as above, weak pass at notability for Scholar. I think having 6 and 7 citations is still more than most academics we see here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, 6 and 7 citations is nothing. Any random PhD student has that. WP:NPROF requires much more. Tercer (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that 6 and 7 citations is far, far below what we expect for a WP:PROF#C1 pass. I definitely crossed that threshold well before I was done with graduate school. Nothing mentioned in this discussion so far amounts to a pass of any applicable criterion, in my opinion. Right now, I'm inclining towards a "delete" !vote, but if multiple books have been reviewed multiple times apiece, that could change (per WP:NAUTHOR and maybe WP:PROF#C4). XOR'easter (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete the three papers that are mentioned as major achievements have very low citation counts so this will not pass WP:NPROF. He may pass WP:NAUTHOR having 2 books with one review each (which is the minimal criterion), but for one of the books he is not a sole author so I also dont see the subject passing this bar. --hroest 18:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After hitting up JSTOR, I believe that WP:NAUTHOR is met for the reason I suggested above. Reviews of A Practitioner's Guide to Resampling for Data Analysis, Data Mining, and Modeling: [3][4][5]. Reviews of the co-authored Common Errors in Statistics (and How to Avoid Them): [6][7]. Review of The A-Z Of Error-Free Research: [8] ([9] is very short). Reviews of Applying Statistics in the Courtroom: A New Approach for Attorneys and Expert Witnesses: [10][11]. Reviews of Permutation, Parametric and Bootstrap Tests of Hypotheses: [12][13][14][15]. XOR'easter (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the reviews found by XOR'easter. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist for closing an old log, and to seek some further input on the reviews found by XOR'easter.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 07:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the papers may not be highly cited, the textbooks seem to get a lot of citations. They also get reviews. I searched myself before noticing that XOR'easter had searched, and found an overlapping list: [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. The combination looks quite solid to me, and although the article is in poor shape, WP:DINC applies. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2023 (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.