Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Hooley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Weak Keep. Cbrown1023 15:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Hooley

Chris Hooley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested speedy on an academic. Being an academic, or your local union rep, is not notable. Nothing else of note offered. Nuttah68 11:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - I know nothing about physics and I have heard of the fellow. I know fame isn't a notability test but this seems petty at best! Thanks for your time. PatrickSW 19:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, article mentions nothing especially notable about this professor. Flyingtoaster1337 12:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF. MER-C 13:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No new evidence found in G-search "Chris hooley" & Oxford and "Chris hooley" & physicist. Seems to guest-lecture in US and was thus mentioned at Rutgers site, but a trivial quote from his lecture. --Kevin Murray 20:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails to meet WP:PROF. Davidpdx 12:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Objectively on the basis of WP:PROF. It is only necessary to meet one of the conditions, and he meets criterion 3.3, The work must be widely cited. Seven publications in good journals isn't bad for a beginner, and the top 3 of them had 21, 22, and 28 citations in Web of Science, which is "widely" since the average number is between 1 and 2, varying by field, & this is an order of magnitude higher. (And all are peer reviewed journals). Negative results on Ghits is not conclusive for academics -- Use Google Scholar as well--there were 12. And it is not necessary to work in the US to be notable. But, normally a university lecturer in the UK, which I think corresponds roughly to a US Assistant professor, is not yet notable in any subjective sense, unless the work is extraordinarily good. However we have an objective (albeit still disputed) test. The only way to dispute it is to quibble on widely. If we follow our own rules, it's keep. DGG 08:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I am going to disagree with this logic and quibble on widely. Criterion 3.3 has to be read in conjunction with the criterion 3, in particular -The person has published a significant and well-known academic work.- In this context, I believe, widely means cited by groups beyond the immediate geographic and research area (not from within the same research institution or group) and not merely a numbers game, which is not demonstrated. As mentioned by User:Drew30319 Editors should be careful when deleting articles that are outside of their field of expertise.. As someone in the field, the article as it stands shows Dr Hooley has done little more than that which is required as a researcher in the UK to maintain their research funding. Nuttah68 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. As a student of physics I have come across his work countless times - he's definitely one of the most cited sources on my course. (Quantum physics). Yeanold Viskersenn 00:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG and Yeanold Viskersenn. This is not my field but the number of published articles seemed relevant enough that I contested the speedy. Editors should be careful when deleting articles that are outside of their field of expertise. Thanks to User:DGG for doing the homework! Drew30319 02:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepHe's not especially notable, but has done research into several fields that aren't widely researched. Plus, he's gay, which shouldn't really enter into it, but I daresay that homosexual quantum physics lecturers with PhDs from Oxbridge are few and far between! Hawker Typhoon 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
As you say, it shouldn't enter into it, bu perhaps the numbers may be the other way round. 01:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
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.