| Revision as of 05:42, 4 December 2006 editDGG (talk | contribs)316,874 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:35, 4 December 2006 edit undoDrKay (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators159,713 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| :*'''Note''' - I just posted an FYI at ] where there may be folks that are versed on this topic. If this is not an appropriate action of mine, please just kindly advise. Thanks! --] 12:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | :*'''Note''' - I just posted an FYI at ] where there may be folks that are versed on this topic. If this is not an appropriate action of mine, please just kindly advise. Thanks! --] 12:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''keep'''. Being in that project myself, he is by far notable enough. Number of publication , combined with Professor rank at a university is enough. (Number depends on field, but I can think of no field in bio where 25 or so would not be enough, and he has twice that.) There seems to be a certain bias against academics if AfDs are placed even if they have status as high as this. The current WP:PROF discussions do not have the least consensus, and are simply not an accepted criterion in WP, especially in science. But I highly commend the approach taken here of asking WP people in the subject if they want to comment. ] 05:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | *'''keep'''. Being in that project myself, he is by far notable enough. Number of publication , combined with Professor rank at a university is enough. (Number depends on field, but I can think of no field in bio where 25 or so would not be enough, and he has twice that.) There seems to be a certain bias against academics if AfDs are placed even if they have status as high as this. The current WP:PROF discussions do not have the least consensus, and are simply not an accepted criterion in WP, especially in science. But I highly commend the approach taken here of asking WP people in the subject if they want to comment. ] 05:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' He does not meet the criteria proposed at ]. Yes, he has made contributions but they are not of lasting and profound importance. ] 12:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:35, 4 December 2006
John Brookfield (geneticist)
- John Brookfield (geneticist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Linkless article on a college professor. Does not satisfy WP:BIO - there is no evidence that it is more noteworthy than an average university professor. He has some publications (as do most college professors), but nothing indicates that these are particularly noteworthy. Dsreyn 18:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. NN academic, and the page is a near-copy of the subject's page at his university, here. Cheers, Sam Clark 20:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable research scientist with 55 publications at PubMed link. Full professor at one of the top UK universities. Way more noteworthy than the average college teacher. Edison 21:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm taking WP:PROF as the standard of notability, and I don't see any evidence in the article (or in a fast websearch) that the subject meets any of those criteria. But of course PROF isn't policy. Edison: are you using a different standard of notability, or do you think Brookfield meets a PROF criterion? Cheers, Sam Clark 14:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 01:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)- Note - I just posted an FYI at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Announcements where there may be folks that are versed on this topic. If this is not an appropriate action of mine, please just kindly advise. Thanks! --Keesiewonder 12:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- keep. Being in that project myself, he is by far notable enough. Number of publication , combined with Professor rank at a university is enough. (Number depends on field, but I can think of no field in bio where 25 or so would not be enough, and he has twice that.) There seems to be a certain bias against academics if AfDs are placed even if they have status as high as this. The current WP:PROF discussions do not have the least consensus, and are simply not an accepted criterion in WP, especially in science. But I highly commend the approach taken here of asking WP people in the subject if they want to comment. DGG 05:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete He does not meet the criteria proposed at Misplaced Pages:Notability (academics). Yes, he has made contributions but they are not of lasting and profound importance. DrKiernan 12:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)