Talk:Norman Fenton

Resume
Some hopefully constructive points for future improvements:
 * Honours should be sorted in chronological order. The list needs to be more selective and only include noteworthy major awards and other significant honours. Unless the BBC documentary was honoured specifically for his contributions, it doesn't belong in this list.
 * Neither "Career" nor "Research" need to mention every minor detail and step in his career, especially when these details are not based on independent secondary sources. The article should focus on a summary of his biography, extended details should be limited to major milestones and other significant aspects of his life and career.
 * WP:PEACOCK phrases should be removed ("prestiguous", "major", etc.)
 * Additional secondary sources would be helpful - currently most of the article is based on the academic's own publications. Secondary sources should provide independent coverage about his life and research. GermanJoe (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Technical Writing Skills
Professor Fenton wrote an essay "Improving Your Technical Writing Skills" to help his students write academic technical texts. This essay was published on the website of the Queen Mary University of London at "https://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~norman/papers/good_writing/Technical%20writing.pdf". I thought it was very well done and added a corresponding section including a citation, but it was deleted because it "fails WP:V". Somebody able to better present and support this detail might want to rewrite such a mention. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Are there any good sources mentioning this essay? Alexbrn (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not that I know about. Is not the statement that needs to comply with WP:V that Fenton wrote an essay that contains certain details mentioned? I comply by referring to the website where it was published. Why should there be a need to find it mentioned elsewhere? We are discussing WP:V and not notability. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It fails WP:V because there is nothing in the source to support "Professor Fenton is also known for his essay ...". This is your own thought, WP:OR, which is also prohibited by policy. This is an encyclopedia so is meant to be a summary of what reliable sources are saying about a topic. Alexbrn (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. You are right. I should not have written "Professor Fenton is also known for his essay ...", just "Fenton wrote an essay ...". Could I bring back the deleted section with this change? or would this be WP:EDITWAR? I am learning here from you. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Without secondary sourcing to establish some WP:WEIGHT, it would be WP:UNDUE. Alexbrn (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Honours?
The below were listed (somewhat bizarrely) as honours. These are not honours in the traditional sense, they are just career milestones. I've listed them below in case anyone wants to add them back into the article (if they are probably cited).

Honours BBC Documentary "Climate Change by Numbers" (which Fenton co-presented, screened first 2 March 2015) won the following awards: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science Journalism Gold Award for "best in-depth TV reporting" 2015. details here. European Science TV and New Media Award for the best Science programme on an environmental issue, 2015. Faculty of Science and Engineering Research Award (Queen Mary University of London) 2015 Lead Researcher in award of a Cambridge University Newton Institute Programme Semester (topic is Probability and Statistics in Forensic Science) to take place 18 July – 21 December 2016. Awarded European Research Council Advanced Fellowship Grant (value 1,572,562 euros for a 4-year programme) 1 April 2014. The Fenton and Neil paper "A critique of software defect prediction models" placed in top 1% most influential papers in its field based on number of citations (according to Essential Science Indicators). International Patent (Publication Number WO 03/090466) for Improved TV Programme Selection (based on Bayesian Networks, Fuzzy Logic and an original approach to TV programme classification). Named as one of the world's 15 top scholars (for the third time). Glass RL and Chen TY, "An assessment of Systems and Software Engineering scholars and institutions (1996–2000)", Journal of Systems and Software 59, 107–113, Oct 2001. Appointed Professor at City University at the age of 34. ATM Flett prize for MSc, 1979. Top First Class Degree, University of London, 1978. School Scholar at LSE 1976–78. Winner of LSE Undergraduate Prize 1976, 1977. Chartered Engineer, Member of the IET (since 1987). Chartered Mathematician, Fellow of the IMA (AFIMA 1988, FIMA 1998). Fellow of the BCS (British Computer Society) since 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nauseous Man (talk • contribs) 11:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This page reads like a personal bio
It's full of single sourced fluff with no mention of his anti-vaccination and covidskepticism. Palmer House (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Got sources? Alexbrn (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well that may have something to do with this: https://www.normanfenton.com/post/how-wikipedia-defames-and-delegitimizes-anybody-raising-concerns-against-the-who-narrative-on-covid 73.227.29.77 (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not useable as a WP:PRIMARY WP:FRINGE source. We need something that refutes Fenton's misconceptions specifically. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Notability
Is there any independent source for notability as per WP:ACADEMIC? We can see a lot of articles and a book, but their impact has not been demonstrated (criteria 1). Criteria 2-6 also don't seem to be met, at least in terms of referenced material. There is some non-academic activity, but that has been edited out due to lack of references. 130.188.13.239 (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Having one's work cited in papers written by other people is one of the major independent sources mentioned in WP:NPROF. Writing a widely used textbook is another. See Notability (academics) where it says The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work. I know this aspect of academic notability confuses many Wikipedia editors. Fenton was a major influence in the early years of software metrics. See his citation rates here. Citation rates of over 100 per paper are considered high. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is why I have added the usual list of most highly cited publications to the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is quite odd that, if Fenton is considered a highly cited author in that particular field, why there are no field or profession specific sources about him. There appear to be no "independent statements" or "reviews" as listed in WP:ACADEMIC. We are entirely reliant on citation metrics, a self-provided QMUL CV, and the personal webpage. Compare this to Elaine Weyuker, who is significantly less notable based only on citation metrics, but has far wider professional recognition based on aforementioned "independent statements" or "reviews". 130.188.13.239 (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I did a bit of a dive into this, and seems like the field of "software metrics" fits into the "Overly narrow and highly specialized category" as defined in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes. If is defined as such, then criterion 1 would not be satisfied purely on citations rates.
 * Software metric does not describe the philosophy, nature, history, or individuals involved. It does not even clearly state that it is an academic discipline. There is a short paragraph about how software developers view metrics themselves, but not the field of study (software metrics). 130.188.13.239 (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The academic discipline involved is computer science; Fenton is a highly cited author in that field. Why is it so important to you that he not be notable? StarryGrandma (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As an longtime academic, I find it odd that a supposedly highly cited individual has no "independent statements" or "reviews" about their work. No news, field specific discussion, awards, or such to indicate notability in the field. As it stands, the claim of notability rests with your claim that he is notable in computer science based purely on citation numbers less than 1/10 of leading CS academics. Some more rigor in this matter would be preferred. And do be mindful of WP:PA 130.188.13.239 (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And to add to this, the last point of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics references a document which among other criteria states the following:
 * "6. Numerical impact measurements, such as citation counts, have their place but must
 * never be used as the sole source of evaluation. Any use of these techniques must be
 * subjected to the filter of human interpretation, in particular to avoid the many possible
 * sources of errors. It must be complemented by peer review, and by attempts to measure
 * impact of contributions other than publication." 130.188.13.239 (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)