Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian P. Flitney


 * 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Adrian P. Flitney

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:PROF particularly third party evidence of significant contribution to field Michellecrisp (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —John Z (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Has a good citation record for a recent (2005) Ph.D. but I'm not seeing enough to overcome the presumption that faculty at this level are not yet notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. He is one of the pioneers of Quantum game theory. I just added more citations to give third party evidence. His work is reported in New Scientist, Physics World, and in a recent game theory text on John Nash, for example.Bletchley (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This does not seem to be explicitedly stated in the article that he is actually a pioneer. Michellecrisp (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Granted he is cited in New Scientist and Physics World, this does not mean he has been widely cited.  He will likely be a notable figure in the future, but there is no need for an article on him now.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF yet. The citation record is OK for a recent PhD but is certainly still far from the notable range. GoogleScholar gives top citation hits of 23, 22, 12, 8, 7. Similar results in WebOfScience, fairly little in GoogleBooks, nothing in googlenews. Based on the article it appears that he may still be a postdoc at Melbourne. No significant academic awards or honors yet. Does not pass WP:PROF at this point. Nsk92 (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks Nsk92. That seems to solidly prove Flitney is not a pioneer. If he was, he would be widely cited and credited. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think the record shows that he's not a pioneer. But if he is one, it will take a few more years for that to become apparent; per WP:CRYSTAL, we should wait until that happens before adding an entry for him rather than rushing to do so now. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. He may well have already done something brilliant and groundbreaking, but it would take a few years for that to be reflected in the citation record. If that happens, it will be quite appropriate to create an article about him then. Nsk92 (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Nomoskedasticity, David Eppstein, and Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. He is not a pioneer, but one of the early pioneers. Scholar Google reveals the first paper in the field was written in 1999 and his first publication in the area was in 2000...so he was right there near the beginning. Also the field as a whole has about 1000 citations, whilst his citations are about a 100.  That's not bad taking a 10% slice of a whole new field. This is notable in my opinion. There are a lot worse articles you should be deleting such as Carroll Alley who has fewer citations and no substance at all in the article. Personally I would leave it in hopes that someone will improve the article. CruftEater (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Crusio (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep on the basis of "A. P. Flitney and D. Abbott, "Quantum version of the Monty Hall problem", Phys. Rev. A 65 (2002) 062318 Cited in popular articles on quantum game theory in New Scientist (January 5th, 2002) and The Dallas Morning News (January 28th, 2003)." (from . Incidentally, is he perhaps notable as a chess player? I dont know the standards there. DGG (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No claim of notability. References to him are in passing only. Every working academic is required to have made some original contribution--regardless of how modest. Citation of such a contribution is not a claim of notability. Surely this individual is talented and intelligent (surely much more than many others who have in fact crossed over the notability threshold), but there is no indication of notability. Bongomatic (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.