Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Doe

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. J04n(talk page) 13:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Doe

William Doe (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 person from Newington College who became an academic and mid-level university administrator. Being the head of a university department is not primarily dependent on academic achievement, so this is not evidence of being a notable professor. No technical contributions disclosed, and otherwise he is just another mid-level manager ADS54 talk 11:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Professor at two leading Australian universities and Dean at one in the UK. Let's all stop and read Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Nominator overlooks the obligation that those who wish to delete on the grounds of notability are required to have made "thorough attempts to find reliable sources" as article content does not determine notability. Secondly, the criteria for deletion is given in Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons_for deletion and says nothing about the motivation of the creator of the article; users are free to create articles relating to their special interests and this is not spamming. Castlemate (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ACADEMIC says 'Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify)' ADS54 talk 20:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject was professor at two top 20 / 50 world ranked academic institutions with highly regarded medical faculities, and medical dean at another highly ranked university. Aoziwe (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Professor at a notable university doesn't get you to individual notability alone. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per The Drover's Wife. Would need significant coverage, which doesn't appear to exist. Frickeg (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Dean of a Medical School -- or a lwa school -- (as contrasted with such positions as Dean of Undergraduate Studies, etc) is almost equivalent to head of a university, and has usually been held to constitute intrinsic notability . The two profesorial positions add to it, Unfortunately given the common name and the lack of specificity I cannot figure out a way to check the publications. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep –speedy keep for this matter. Not only Provost of University but also dean of medical school at another renown university. How many of his publication have you searched for?. "Provost" also is all about semantics, in many countries it is equivalent of Vice chancellors, while in others it means pro-chancellors. In addition he have biography entry in Australia's national biographical reference " Who's Who in Australia" 2008 edition. The Who's Who in Australia is authoritative reference material used by academics as a resource that identifies Australia's leading individuals, and as a research tool by journalists and historian This entry alone made him passes WP:ANYBIO #3 as it is equivalent of Dictionary of National Biography. This is not misnomination in the least –Ammarpad (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not only does this article read like a very brief cv, at no point is any attempt made to establish his notability as an academic. Two brief references in this article do not cut it. If it isn’t beefed up anytime soon ( which is unlikely, given the main motivation for this page’s creations seems to be his high school) then it’s unlikely to be of any use to anyone.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Difficult to see how this article passes WP:PROF. Neither a provost nor a dean is the head of a university, and there's no reliable sources to suggest any of the other points in the guideline might be met instead. The article also doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO as there is no significant, independent coverage on the subject. Kb.au (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The argument for keeping this article under WP:PROF is underwhelming. Being a professor alone doesn't pass PROF and never has. And a Dean, regardless of the subject, is still the head of a department—far from the "highest level" post mentioned by C6. Same for being a Provost at AKU. There is simply no evidence that this person has had a significant enough impact on scholarship to write a proper biography. Nor is there a case for meeting the WP:GNG; as pointed out in other AfDs, Who's Who is by no means the equivalent of the Dictonary of National Biography, and is actually a pretty dubious source, since the entries are typically at least partially self-written. – Joe (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Pointed out with evidence or by mere assertion ?. You're basing your reason on someone who in edit summary says he want show irritating pedantry (for reason, of course you're not aware of).
• You also got it it wrong, "Dean" is never head of department talkless of dean of medical school. In many universities Colleges of medicine are larger than many standard universities in every respect, only they don't call their head VC, Chancellor, president or whatnot. Perhaps when you understand status of medical colleges you'll know many deans of such colleges are superiors of VCs of smaller universities. :*Also your assertions that Who is Who is partially written by the nominees themselves needs and is dubious both should've^{[citation needed]}.
• Then if being Dean in one university is nothing and Provost at another notable university is nothing. What of being both?. The article is in very poor shape and stub and that's why you're weighing his notability to the shape of the article and its lack of many references but notability is never defined by the content or state of an article WP:CONTN. Ammarpad (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ammarpad: The somewhat incestuous and self-promotional editorial processes of Who's Who is well known and should be easily verified. For example, our article on the British Who's Who discusses it. I don't see any reason to think the Australian version is any more scrupulous in its editorial processes. It's not a bad source, but it's not entirely independent either. The (O)DNB on the other hand is a rigorously edited reference work published by an academic press and, notably, only includes entries on dead people. That is the kind of high-quality and fully independent coverage that automatically establishes notability under WP:ANYBIO; not Who's Who.

I don't understand why you are being pedantic (and condescending) about the dean issue. We're not talking about other universities. Doe was the head (dean) of the University of Birmingham's Medical School. It should be self-evident that that is not the highest-level administrative post at the University of Birmingham. In fact WP:PROF#C6 specifically excludes deans and provosts. Holding two non-notable positions does not make a person notable.

I don't believe I mentioned the state of sourcing in the article. I'm familiar with WP:CONTN and don't need it explained to me, thanks. – Joe (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Your analogy of UK's Who is Who and Australian to come to conclusion; they're all this and that is hasty generalization to push your point and in substance, argument from analogy which is fallacy.

2. Sorry, WP:PROF#6 didn't mention "universities" at all, and there is reason for that. So your alluded meaning that he must head Birmingham University (topmost position) before he satisfy that criteria is faulty from premise.

3. I hate pedantry myself and hope to use the most common words always (though not pefect) and avoid semantics manipulation. But the fact that you insist "dean of college (Medical)" and "head of department" is similar position is strange. I never meant to be condescending.

4. Guideline is not hard and fast rule, thats why every guideline page reiterates this. Read the general notes just below the PROF criterion you qouted –Ammarpad (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• More sources found. He passed ACADEMIC#8. He served as president of Gastroenterological Society of Australia for 2 years and as Editor in Chief of its academic journal for almost a decade. Described in page 318, from JSTOR source book from academic press. His "academic work" and himself personally regularly featured in the press. ABC Australia citing his academic work [1], from Birmingham Post [2], [3], [4], [5] from the Guardian [6]. Listed among select academics on Panel of experts on health reform and national health research for Australian Government [7]. He has puplished books and tens of journal papers which received high citations on Google Scholar and leading academic citation index Scopus. All these are easily verifiable, and I believe these and the sources in the article are enough to show this is Professor, but not ordinary professor. –Ammarpad (talk) 00:11, 23 December 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.