Wikipedia:WikiProject Academics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This WikiProject is inspired by discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion of a minor academic, at which Robert Merkel pointed out the Wikipedia's pathetic coverage of Nobel Prize for Physics and Turing Award winners. If we are serious about matching and ultimately exceeding other encyclopedias, we should have articles for at least the winners of major global awards in their fields.

[edit] Title

WikiProject Academics

[edit] Scope

This WikiProject aims primarily to define a standard format for biographical articles about academic scientists, engineers, doctors, perhaps extending to the social sciences to some extent. As stated, it was inspired by the idea of providing at least minimal coverage of major award winners, but is not restricted to that - the debate over inclusion criteria is a separate issue.

A secondary aim of this WikiProject is to attract academics to wikipedia. If wikipedia is to become a highly regarded resource, it is going to have to involve the participation of experts in every field. One way to attract experts is to create articles that will be useful to an expert. For example, an authoritative list of contemporary sociologists might be useful to sociology researchers, even if the articles in wikipedia on each sociologist lack substantial quality. (See List of philosophers for an actual example.)

[edit] Parentage

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia. We should use the conventions specified in it unless stated otherwise.

[edit] Participants

User:Robert Merkel
Quinobi
Martin Walker (I will help out from time to time with scientists)
KSchutte (academics of philosophy)
Bduke (I am working through the list of members in International Academy of Quantum Molecular Science and writing bio pages. Is this project active. If so, please contact me.
Lacatosias
Huangdi (I will work on legal scholars, as well as others.)
T e nnessee Wood
Carboxen (writing scientist biographies, interested in collaborating with someone for creating a software-driven academic lineage tree generator from the academia template)
DGG 04:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC), currently just trying to stem the flood of deletions.
Curious Gregor -(Getting more British academics (Probably from this list onto wikipediaand trying to stop deletions, also I have noiminated a new Barnstar for this area).

[edit] Structure

Use the structure discussed in WikiProject Biography, where applicable. The following are additional guidelines:

Each major award should have a list of award winners linking to the individuals concerned, and each academic should be added to the [[list of <I>field</I>]] of the field (or fields) that they are prominent in.

If they have won a major award, the citation for that award should be included verbatim.

Biographical details should include the details of their education, particularly their PhD (if they have one). It may be noteworthy, for instance, who their supervisor was. A brief summary of their academic career, including their current posting if still active, should be included.

The article should ideally discuss their key publications and give an indication of their significance. A complete listing of their publications should not be included.

Other biographical details can and should be added as available - however, do not do your own original research to add such. Find material published elsewhere (and cite as appropriate).

If they have a home page, a link to that is appropriate.

[edit] Useful links

[edit] Hierarchy Definition

No classification of Biographies has been defined. See this example on dividing a topic into a hierarchy.

[edit] Academia Template

The {{Infobox Scientist}} as endorsed by the Wikiproject Biography is recommended. For an exemplaric use of the infobox, see for example: Carl Friedrich Gauss (featured article).

[edit] Deletion List

[edit] Useful links

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Academics and educators. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
removing closed AFDs.
removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|Academics and educators}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Academics and educators}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.

Please see WP:BIO for guidelines on the inclusion of biographical articles, WP:PROF for the widely-used proposed notability standard for academics. Other notability standards that may be of relevance include WP:SCIENCE, the notabilty guidelines for scientific research.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education for a general list of deletion debates related to education.

[edit] Academics and educators

[edit] Abraham (Avi) Loeb

This is an autobiography - see comment by Dha321 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.43.156.42 . Attempts to modify page by other users besides Dha321 have been reverted. Faol87 22:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete. There is probably notability present, but the article needs to be cleaned up so it doesn't read like a faculty profile page. Also, the user should probably be notified about WP:COI and it should be made clear that he doesn't own the article and has no right to remove legitimate edits as such. On that note, I'm usually in favor of killing the article and letting it be generated the legitimate way, by an independent contributor. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 00:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I've notified User:Dha321 of some of the concerns, including WP:AUTO, WP:OWN and WP:COI. I've also invited him to participate in this AfD discussion. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 00:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep. Possible WP:AUTO issues, granted. The tone of the above-referenced comment also suggest related WP:OWN issues, as it is completely inappropriate to suggest that Dr. Loeb's clearance is required to make changes in the article. That said, however, the subject is notable and the specific changes to which Dha321 was objecting in that above-referenced comment were, in fact, objectionable. Googling "Sandage-Loeb test" returns over 100 results. Googling just "Sandage test" returns 4, one of which ackwoledges that the test is also called the Sandage-Leob test. So clearly the scholarly world has acknowledged a contribution by Loeb to the test, whether User:67.43.156.42 thanks that should be the case or not. User:144.132.195.54's changes seem more defensible. These were also reverted by Dha321, so that's again suggestive of WP:OWN. But given that Loeb's paper is what's being referenced, and that paper in turn does credit Hills, the original prose that Dha321 restored is not entirely without merit either. On the whole, a re-write so that it's clearly not WP:AUTO and a reminder provided to Dha321 to relinquish "ownership" seem to me to be a better solution than outright deletion. Mwelch 00:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Ira Lewy

I tried to help the author of this article, Kingseason, with establishing the notability of the subject. He appears to have written a number of research papers, but I don't think this goes beyond the amount of research needed to fulfill Wikipedia:Notability. When asked of the author's relation to Dr. Lewy, Kingseason told me that he was his research assistant. Even without this information, the article reads like a conflict of interest. It's almost entirely positive information, while a quick google search turns up omitted negative information about Dr. Lewy [1]. I don't have any prejudice against someone scrapping the article and rewriting it in the event that he does actually meet the notability guidelines, but the current article is not satisfactory. Leebo ^T/C 13:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ultra-weak keep to allow time for tidying up and sourcing, but delete unless substantially improved soon; as per nom, at the moment this reads like a job application. If the man's notable for anything, it's for his criminal & disciplinary record more than his work, and this is precisely the material the article currently omits. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Resume/CV. If the creator wants to work on it, it can be userfied and moved back into article space when ready. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 23:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I added references from the New York Times (enough to establish notability, I think) which call into question his clinical work related to breast implants. Now that some negative information is available, I think an appropriate article can be built from the current one and from the references. --Eastmain 00:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep I am not totally sure his initial medical research is notable, though some of the journals cited are first-rate. But his later adventures are. DGG 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helmut Metzner

Unotable scientist. Fails WP:NOTE 99DBSIMLR 17:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Article is now a stub. What's needed is a complete translation of the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia. --Eastmain 23:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Eastmain 23:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen P. Sheehi

Likely autobiography Pan Dan 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 23:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I just want to add that while in most AfD's what should be evaluated is the potential, not the current, state of the article, in a case of conflict of interest concerns I feel the article should be deleted even if the article has potential. It is not appropriate for single-purpose accounts to shoehorn articles about themselves into Wikipedia by creating an article and then having other, disinterested, editors bring the article up to Wikipedia stan dards. See also User_talk:Jaxon_km. Pan Dan 23:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen M. Smith

Delete: Non-notable professor and fund raiser. This was originally speedied by me but was reposted in a slightly improved form. There are claims made at Talk:Stephen M. Smith including significant press coverage but I do not see that coverage. The mda.org reference also mentions Mike Buche, Raymon Villegas, and Mark Reiman which are all red links. I received a note about this article being involved in some wider dispute but I know nothing of that. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete: per nom. This professor has no notability. --18:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Ksy92003

Keep: per notability rationale on article's talk page. Smith was recognized by significant press coverage. Also recognized as innovative and unique by the Muscular Dystrophy Association. Smith created a significant project, a non-profit as a proposed fundraising model for other ALS patients. The article is cited, verifiable, and written in good faith. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete. How's this guy even close to being notable? And this from someone who invokes BLP elesewhere? 151.151.21.105 19:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - The article doesn't state why this guy's notable--$UIT 20:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 23:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete. One article in the local newspaper is not "significant press coverage", and I agree with previous commenters that notability has not been shown. In terms of WP:PROF, it doesn't even say that he has any kind of specialty, let alone that he's known as any kind of expert in it. So I think for notability we have to rely on the more general criteria in WP:BIO but there the case is weak too. —David Eppstein 01:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brett Leighton

Notability not established. Also, the talk page assertion that the subject won the "Paul Hoffheimer prize in Innsbruck" does not appear to be easily verifiable: [2] & [3] &[4] & [5]. Other ghits: [6] & [7] NMChico24 00:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Claim to notability is unverified. Ab e g92contribs 02:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Not sourced at all. Tohru Honda13 04:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - The article doesn't specify how this person is notable--$UIT 05:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I see no sources or specifications of being notable.--Joebengo 06:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep A quick Google of the name Brett Leighton shows numerous links to a wide variety of sites which confirm notability. He is a classical musician and an academic, thus he does not have the kind of bombastic site and fan club that some musicians have. The article is desperate for a cleanup and needs additional references cited. I have added three and there are more. Someone who can speak German is probably needed for some of the key sites As of April 8, 2007. I urge my fellow editors not to pull the trigger too fast on this one. JBEvans 11:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. I think he passes WP:PROF although maybe not WP:MUSIC. The full professorship (could someone who knows german check this here?) plus the work on the world's oldest organ and his role as top judge in major organ competitions passes the bar for me. Music profs are hard to judge as they don't typically write for journals indexed by google scholar, and their performance/composition work stays below the radar of the major media. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 14:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep Needs a major clean-up. Gan fon 15:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep- strong notability, references included. Meets WP:BIO. Retiono Virginian 16:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kiril Chukanov

Self-sourced article on someone whose claims have not been published in any reputable journal. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete - external links are to self-published sources, and the article admits he hasn't published his research in peer-reviewed journals. No evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:PROF. Delete unless properly sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete As nobody besides himself has noticed his work, he is not notable. All refs. from his own site. DGG 16:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 23:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete. "has not published"? "undisclosed location"? This article goes beyond the usual failure to assert notability and instead asserts non-notability. —David Eppstein 23:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Ball (educator)

No proof of notability according to WP:PROFTEST. Created by the subjects family member WP:COI, as part of a vanity user page. Diletante 19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Accomplishment is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete given lack of reliable sources. If there was verifiable evidence of his involvement with Sesame Street or Sale of the Century, I would be inclined to keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capitalistroadster (talk • contribs) 02:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
keep A clearly notable educator. If it was written by a member of the family, he did a completely objective job of it. COI raises the question of possible exaggeration, but does not prove it. The accomplishments speak for themselvesDGG 06:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep on proviso article is wikified to also include better citations and sources and brought into line with the biography project, which would give increased providence to the notability of the person. thewinchester 16:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep, seems just notable enough, and doesn't appear to have any serious POV issues, so WP:COI becomes a non-issue. Lankiveil 00:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
Keep. Not written in the manner of a vanity page.--ZayZayEM 02:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer it kept, but improved by someone else. I'm happy to not involve myself further, recognising my initial mistake in the creation. The external links are to bodies that have records of his employment. I have not been exhaustive. He is retired now, and not likely to ever add to the achievements. DDB 02:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naomi Scheman

complete nomination by anon SYSS Mouse 03:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Very weak delete - currently nothing to show she passes WP:PROFTEST, but she may well do so. The comment on the talk page "I am trying to create this page for a group project in one of Naomi's philosophy classes" doesn't bode well, though. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - promotional article, no assertion of encyclopedic notability made, no indication she passes either WP:N or the relevant subject-specific guidelines. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Her achievements appear to be those of an average competent college professor, and I don't think she's notable enough to require an article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete Not completely obscure, but I'm not convinced she meets WP:PROF yet; maybe in a decade or so. Brianyoumans 20:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable enough for me and of interest to many people. Xanucia 22:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The bio (apparently done by an enthusiastic student) ommited a few details. She has served as Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Minnesota, and she's also been chair of the women's Studies Department. She is a full professor at Minnesota, and Minnesota is a major research university. She is a member of the Austrian Studies Program--presumably as a Wittgenstein specialist. She's edited a book, and published a chapter in another, that they forgot to list, She's held a few important university positions there , including member of the Center for Bioethics,.... . In general full professors at major universities are notable, for they will have done much more than the "average professor" The average professor in the humanities publishes one book or maybe a few articles. To become a tenured professor at Minnesota, she certainly needed to have written a good deal beyond that. She has published one book, edited another ,and written considerable parts of four. She has passed several external reviews by experts for their notability in the profession for appointment and promotion. We don't establish notability in WP, we see if the profession has established notability. More if I find some. DGG 01:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete This sentence from the article sums it up for me (emphasis mine):She is best known on the University of Minnesota campus for her "Sexuality and Self-Image" course in the women's studies department. She is also well known among University of Minnesota students for her introductory logic class. She also gives an introductory course in scientific ethics at the Physics Department there. Off campus she's pretty much unknown. Anynobody 07:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Bellczar 23:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete The article is poorly sourced and gives little evidence of notability. Furthermore, there are massive conflict of interest issues and much of the page appears to be copied from her bio from the Women Studies department.[8] I believe that many, perhaps even most, full professors at the University of Minnesota are notable, so I would not oppose a recreation of this article from scratch if a user not connected to her can make a well-sourced case for her notability.--FreeKresge 04:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I used some information from official web pages. The subject's presentation of objective data on official web pages about professional details is generally acceptable. The difficulty writing this article, in fact, was that the pages were not sufficiently informative. I have no personal connection with the subject, have never heard of her before seeing this article, have no particular interest in her academic field, have no connection with the University of Minnesota. Indeed, I discuss the dfficulty posed by he naive writing by her apparent students. That's why I rewrote the article. The information about her research and writing and service is what proves her notability. ' DGG 06:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Sources establishing notability must be independent of the subject of the article. After all, many people pad their resumes to make their accomplishments look more important than they really are. The number of publications is not impressive if it represents the sum total of her published scholarship. There is no evidence in the article that any of the publications has been particularly influential.--FreeKresge 18:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Batchelor

Non-notable professor with some consultancy work on the side. Pleclech 12:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete - NN, autobiographical, advert, no sources, not even a full biography. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 14:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Named chair at the 2nd-best business-school in the UK, strong research record, stronger record of industry and government panel involvement. Seems a clear pass for WP:PROF to me. I wikified the article but didn't change the content much; there's a lot more that could be added from his web page. —David Eppstein 16:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(Added later): I ran a Google news archive search and included some results. Now has multiple independent sources per WP:N. —David Eppstein 19:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep. Needs a lot more information and sources to support claim of notibility.--Joebengo 18:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The current version of the article seems acceptable. --Eastmain 04:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Senior academic and notable author. Piccadilly 11:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Academics_e808.html"

Categories: Wikipedia deletion sorting | AfD debates (Biographical) | AfD debates | Inactive WikiProjects

Wikipedia:WikiProject Academics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Title

[edit] Scope

[edit] Parentage

[edit] Participants

[edit] Structure

[edit] Useful links

[edit] Hierarchy Definition

[edit] Academia Template

[edit] Deletion List

[edit] Useful links

[edit] Academics and educators

[edit] Abraham (Avi) Loeb

[edit] Robert Ira Lewy

[edit] Helmut Metzner

[edit] Stephen P. Sheehi

[edit] Stephen M. Smith

[edit] Brett Leighton

[edit] Kiril Chukanov

[edit] Samuel Ball (educator)

[edit] Naomi Scheman

[edit] Roy Batchelor

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search