Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Fultz

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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Fultz

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems not to reach standard of notability Carl Fredrik^talk 22:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stunning pass of WP:Prof#C1 and also WP:Prof#C5. Nominator is advised to carry out WP:Before before making further AfD nominations of full professors at Cal Tech. Has the nominator's account been hijacked? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I assess the article based on the sources present in it. It does not matter one bit that other sources exist (which in fact they do not). So please refrain from such comments in the future, it is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Carl Fredrik^talk 14:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you are explicitly admitting to not following the relevant notability guideline, WP:PROF, and not following WP:BEFORE? Why should we be expected to take your nominations seriously, if so? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't necessarily about notability, but whether the article as it stands is acceptable. Does it actually carry enough information to be an article? 4/5 sources are just listings. Carl Fredrik^talk 18:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Brent Fultz is a full professor and holds a named chair appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (Cal Tech) and hence clearly satisfies WP:Prof#C5. This is enough to regard him as notable according to Wikipedia standards. The article should be further expanded to contain the full breadth of his work. Jorge.munoz (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still requires reliable secondary sources. Carl Fredrik^talk 14:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CFCF: WP:V and WP:BLP require reliable sources, but not necessarily reliable secondary sources (at least for factual claims rather than evaluation). WP:GNG is inapplicable because this is a case for a parallel separate-but-equal guideline, WP:PROF. So where are you getting this supposed requirement? And for that matter what makes you think the tms and neutronscattering sources are non-secondary? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The single acceptable source is the TMS interview, the rest are simply lists of prize recipients. That isn't generally enough to merit an article. Per that rationale each person on those lists should have an article, saying nothing beyond that they received a prize. Carl Fredrik^talk 18:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Merit an article" is an argument about notability, and notability for academics is not about sourcing. So your argument is invalid. Also see WP:WAX. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOW. Clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 (heavily cited publications) and #C5 (named chair at a major research institution). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nominator might like to withdraw this nomination to avoid wasting further efforts of editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

No — The lack of any proper independent secondary sources in the article is concerning. Carl Fredrik^talk 14:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass #1,#2,#5 of WP:PROF. I would like to see more references per nom, however. Still, this appears to be a matter for cleanup, not AFD. South Nashua (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the issue is that we should delete in the face of too few sources in the article. Just because it can be fixed does not mean it will be. Carl Fredrik^talk 15:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If an article can be fixed and notability has been established, it should be fixed, not deleted. I think the consensus here is that notability has been established. South Nashua (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the nominator disagrees with policy consensus, the place to argue that is on policy notice boards, not in individual AfDs. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:28, 22 August 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.