Talk:Richard Neapolitan

Note
Wikipedia articles are built primarily by summarizing independent secondary sources. We don't grab individual papers that people write and say something about them, as in this diff. If someone had written say 50 papers, the Wikipedia article would just end up like some weird book report. This is not what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyright
The first sentence, appears almost identically here, but archive.org's first archived version is dated 4 January 2018, so it may have been on Wikipedia first. Adam9007 (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Getting worse
This is growing less and less like a WP article every day, and less likely to be passed into mainspace. User:Profrich for what it's worth, as far as I can see you have blown off every effort to talk with you, so don't know what you are doing, and instead are spending your time generating content that will not lead to an article. But whatever, it is your time to waste. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The promotion continues to get worse and worse. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've tried to trim it back. Honestly, to me he appears notable by WP:PROF. His GS h-index actually looks a little low at 15, but the bulk of his citations appear to be to some books that are widely held (triple digits each at WorldCat ). User:Profrich is selling too hard and sabotaging his own case, IMO. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree - we should not move policy-violating content to WP. If the conflicted creator would begin talking to other editors we could help them make this decent; they are refusing to do that.  There is no reason to reward bad behavior. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Just saw this after moving the page. Multiple established editors have said he is notable. I'm tagging as a COI and will revisit to remove unreferenced items. Mainspace is not a "reward" and enough effort has been expended on the Draft by other editors. It will definately not get deleted at MfD and likely not deleted at AfD. Legacypac (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * He is notable as per WP:PROF. Scopus is always better than GS for determining notability of academics. I found him on Scopus here. Dial911 (talk) 06:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I've stripped unsourced, promotional and personal recolection material. Someone with more math knowledge can hack at the rest. If the subject adds back in such bad material we can and will revert it. Legacypac (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)