Saucysalsa30 (talk | contribs) notability |
→Phil De Luna: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
* '''Keep''', he satisfies criterion 1 of [[WP:NPROF]] by having a copious array of Nature and Science papers, and he satisfies criterion 6 as a director of the National Research Council of Canada. His general-interest output also adds substantially to his relevance for Wikipedia. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 12:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC) |
* '''Keep''', he satisfies criterion 1 of [[WP:NPROF]] by having a copious array of Nature and Science papers, and he satisfies criterion 6 as a director of the National Research Council of Canada. His general-interest output also adds substantially to his relevance for Wikipedia. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 12:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC) |
||
*:Exactly [[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 09:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC) |
*:Exactly [[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 09:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC) |
||
*:AFAICT he wasn't ''the'' director of the NRC, he was ''a'' program director -- the Materials for Clean Fuels Challenge Program. That is definitely not sufficient for C6. The article is full of this kind of misleading promotion and should probably be TNT'd. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 04:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Weak keep''' Brief bio of him here [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/rob-magazine/article-emerging-business-leaders-innovation-canada/], appears not to be a paid piece. There is stuff in Forbes about him, but it's a paid contributor. [[User:Oaktree b|Oaktree b]] ([[User talk:Oaktree b|talk]]) 14:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Weak keep''' Brief bio of him here [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/rob-magazine/article-emerging-business-leaders-innovation-canada/], appears not to be a paid piece. There is stuff in Forbes about him, but it's a paid contributor. [[User:Oaktree b|Oaktree b]] ([[User talk:Oaktree b|talk]]) 14:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' per [[WP:TNT]]. There might be a weak [[WP:PROF#C1]] case here on citations, but any page that starts with "Forbes 30 under 30" needs to be burned to the ground. The position of "youngest to head a research program at the National Research Council" [https://philippinecanadiannews.com/canada/phil-de-luna-ph-d-is-the-youngest-program-director-at-the-national-research-council-of-canada/] is ''not'' what [[WP:PROF#C6]] is about. Advertorial through and through, with no sense of what in a career might actually be noteworthy. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 17:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' per [[WP:TNT]]. There might be a weak [[WP:PROF#C1]] case here on citations, but any page that starts with "Forbes 30 under 30" needs to be burned to the ground. The position of "youngest to head a research program at the National Research Council" [https://philippinecanadiannews.com/canada/phil-de-luna-ph-d-is-the-youngest-program-director-at-the-national-research-council-of-canada/] is ''not'' what [[WP:PROF#C6]] is about. Advertorial through and through, with no sense of what in a career might actually be noteworthy. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 17:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:40, 23 December 2022
Phil De Luna
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Phil De Luna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advertorialized WP:BLP of a research scientist and non-winning candidate for political office. As always, scientists aren't "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show external validation of the significance of their work in sources that don't have a vested interest, whereas non-winning political candidates are virtually never notable for that per se, and get into Wikipedia only if they can show that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons, but this isn't showing what's required to pass either bar.
This is depending far, far too heavily on primary sources directly affiliated with the subject (e.g. Twitter tweets, "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of companies or organizations he's directly affiliated with, pieces of his own bylined writing, etc.), with no evidence shown of the type of third-party sourcing it takes to establish notability as a scientist -- the few reliable sources present here are all either glancing namechecks of his existence as a provider of soundbite, or run of the mill coverage of his non-winning run for political office.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to show considerably better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Environment. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Given that this was already unsuccessfully nominated for deletion, what is the protocol on double jeopardy? The main claim to notability is the second sentence: "He was named a Forbes 30 under 30 in 2019 and was the youngest-ever director at the National Research Council of Canada (NRC)." He had +40 citations and an adjunct professorship at 30. None of that is a matter of self-publication. I have no comparisons, but this would seem a crack above the average academic. Greenbound (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- An article can be put up for deletion more than once, and this article hasn't had an AfD discussion before. A WP:PROD nomination, which I think you're referring to[1], is a different procedure without discussion involved and can be removed by removing the tag on the article. This can be followed by an AfD nomination.
"After the proposed deletion is canceled, if you still believe that the page should be deleted, or that a discussion is necessary, it may be listed on Articles for deletion or files for discussion."
Saucysalsa30 (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- An article can be put up for deletion more than once, and this article hasn't had an AfD discussion before. A WP:PROD nomination, which I think you're referring to[1], is a different procedure without discussion involved and can be removed by removing the tag on the article. This can be followed by an AfD nomination.
- Delete per nom. My understanding is that magazine and newspaper lists generally don't count as notable awards or confer notability. The most notable award appears to be the RSC class of 2021, but few of those members have Wikipedia articles and most that do are easy AfD candidates (Ex: [2]). RSC class membership doesn't appear to have the necessary degree for a BLP's encyclopedic notability, especially as a standalone piece. Much of the available sourcing I can find is primary - what De Luna wrote, what De Luna said, or mini-bios and profiles. On the surface, director at NRC appears notable because the wording in the BLP is ambiguous but on further inspection is not. The NRC is led at the top by the Canadian Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and within the organization by the President, listed as Mitch Davies[3] and Iain Stewart[4] (not to be confused with other Iain Stewarts with Wikipedia articles), which being President of the NRC evidently doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article for these individuals among their other career achievements. De Luna meanwhile is one of the directors within Energy, Engineering and Environment[5] which itself is one piece of NRC. Also the COI editing and promotional tone doesn't help to demonstrate the neutrality or notability of the article. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- We discuss here the notability. Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- As we are discussing. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- We discuss here the notability. Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep He is a co-author of [6], 1060 quotations and many other papers in Science, Nature, Nature *. This is written "His articles are well-cited.[8]" but ignored. Summary - quoted 12781 times. Xx236 (talk) 11:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, he satisfies criterion 1 of WP:NPROF by having a copious array of Nature and Science papers, and he satisfies criterion 6 as a director of the National Research Council of Canada. His general-interest output also adds substantially to his relevance for Wikipedia. Elemimele (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly Xx236 (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- AFAICT he wasn't the director of the NRC, he was a program director -- the Materials for Clean Fuels Challenge Program. That is definitely not sufficient for C6. The article is full of this kind of misleading promotion and should probably be TNT'd. JoelleJay (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep Brief bio of him here [7], appears not to be a paid piece. There is stuff in Forbes about him, but it's a paid contributor. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TNT. There might be a weak WP:PROF#C1 case here on citations, but any page that starts with "Forbes 30 under 30" needs to be burned to the ground. The position of "youngest to head a research program at the National Research Council" [8] is not what WP:PROF#C6 is about. Advertorial through and through, with no sense of what in a career might actually be noteworthy. XOR'easter (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- WP:TNT says "this is the TNT tipping point argument: if the article's content is useless". Is it really? Even if 60% deserve to be removed, the text informs. 12 781 quotations, even after a radical review, is not 'might be a weak'. Xx236 (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Today '12798'. Xx236 (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Citations are not "quotations". And if only 40% of the text is worth keeping, then it's going to be easier to rewrite the article from scratch rather than try to winnow the wheat from the chaff. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Today '12798'. Xx236 (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- WP:TNT says "this is the TNT tipping point argument: if the article's content is useless". Is it really? Even if 60% deserve to be removed, the text informs. 12 781 quotations, even after a radical review, is not 'might be a weak'. Xx236 (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Can find many reliable and independent source about him. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk ! 17:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- At the risk of repeating Bearcat, the "reliable and independent" sourcing out there falls into the precise primary or unreliable categorizations described in the nom like this[9]. There's still the question about establishing notability and the other issues brought up about the article. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)