Talk:Graham Kendall

Untitled
The subject of this article did create the original entry, but this is in response to many other academic/scientists having wikipedia entries. I can provide various names, but do not want to do this in a public forum.

I do not think that this is self publicity. The entries are all factual, and can be verified, and the cited articles are all in the scientific literature.

If the Wikipedia editors do not accept that this is a suitable entry, I am happy for it to be deleted.

217.42.49.129 (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's distinguish between two issues: "Should there be an article on this subject in Wikipedia?" and "If there should, should the subject of the article edit it?".  The relevant policies are WP:PROF (or WP:N if that is not satisfied), and WP:AUTO.  The first question is one of notability.  There are indeed lots of articles about academics, but to argue from that that there should be an article about this academic is false logic.  I don't myself see that sufficient notability has been established, but I'm open to persuasion on that point.  The second question is one of Wikipedia's credibility - while there are certainly occasions when it is not wrong for the subject of an article to edit it (removing defamatory material is the classic case), if such editing were general Wikipedia would lose all credibility and therefore all value.  No paper encyclopedia would allow such editing, with good reason.
 * If you feel that creating the article was, in retrospect, a mistake, then you have the option of tagging it with (which will, in the fullness of time, bring it to the attention of an admin who will decide if indeed it should be speedily deleted).  If you feel that there should be a debate about deletion then you could yourself take the article to WP:AfD (which is a more complex process - read the instructions carefully).  I might well do that myself if I feel that notability is not established, but I'd prefer to give you the opportunity first.
 * It's, um, not good practice to delete tages such as without a prior debate - it suggests bad faith.  But your willingness to have an open debate is more important.  Philip Trueman (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I do understand the points you make and I have spent some time looking through the various sources that you highlighted (thank you for bringing those to my attention). The notability criteria is the most relevant.

With regards to the third point, that is: "The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is widely used as a textbook; if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works; or if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature." I would suggest that (according to ISI) the paper

"Burke E.K., Kendall G. and Soubeiga E. (2003) A Tabu-Search Hyper-Heuristic for Timetabling and Rostering, Journal of Heuristics, 9(6):451-470"

which has been cited 33 times is a significant number of citations and, I would suggest, that this qualifies as a notable work.

The fourth point:

"The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known."

I also believes that this qualifies, as indicated by the list of publications, many of which have also been highly cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.186.11 (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)