Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Reed

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. Alex Shih^Talk 08:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Reed

Roger Reed (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)

This article has been written mainly by a single editor. The editor uses primary sources for all points. Roger Reed is an Oxford academic with no particularly significant contributions beyond that expected from a research professor. No secondary sources are used and "significant coverage" is not established in violation of WP:GNG.

Another Oxford professor Jonathan A Jones argued in the PROD process that h index of 44 ^[1] as per google scholar is sufficient for notability, to satisfy criteria 1 of WP:ACADEMICS, and so is the fellowship of the royal academy of engineering, criteria 3 of WP:ACADEMICS.

Both of these however are insufficient as per WP:ACADEMICS guidelines. h index of 44 in google scholar (38 in Web of Science ^[2]) is not exceptional. Further the guidelines state "Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness." Also the guidelines state "elected memberships in minor and non-notable societies are insufficient." It is unexceptional for an academic to be accorded fellowships in learned societies and fellowship in royal academy of engineering is far less selective than say the Royal Society and is relatively mundane. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roger_Reed for more detailed discussion regarding the guidelines.Johnnysmitha (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)— Johnnysmitha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I find the entire deletion rationale unconvincing. A full professor at Oxford University with 14 publications that have been cited over 100 times each according to Google Scholar, with one cited 2056 times. Even in the modern sphere of academia, this is well beyond what I would expect from an academic with 'no particularly significant contributions'. As is a £187,895 grant from the Royal Society awarded to him as one of its Research Fellows ([1]). --Michig (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Totally implausible rationale for deletion by spa of one day's editing experience. GS shows that 8000 independent secondary sources have cited his work, so passes WP:Prof with flying colors. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Question for nominator. Have you edited Wikipedia before under another account? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Given the mention of Jones, the involvement of Jones in editing this article, and the user name which closely resembles that of Jones, I strongly suspect Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barryispuzzled, a known sockpuppeteer who has a vendetta against Jones. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am also interested in an answer to Xxanthippe's question, but if this is a vendetta against me it's an extraordinarily subtle one. I only started editing this page in response to Johnnysmitha's prod, which came up at Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Oxford/Article alerts. The original article was indeed a bit of a vanity piece, but nothing that couldn't be fixed by a major trim. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, thanks. That's reassuring, even though it leaves the origin of this AfD a bit of a mystery. I'll strike my comment below. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per both WP:PROF#C1 (already clearly demonstrated by Michig) and WP:PROF#C3 (FREng). This seems likely to be a bad-faith nomination against Jonathan A Jones, a long-term Wikipedia editor who has made major contributions to this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per arguments of David Eppstein above, which are pretty much the arguments I used in my original deprod [2]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nominator provides the keep argument themselves; their argument that a very high h-index of 44 and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering does not meet the respective WP:PROF criteria is at odds with the consensus in hundreds of past AfDs. – Joe (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2017 (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.