Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Hall (biologist)


 * 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. Consensus was that this article has so thoroughly comingled the biographies of two different people that it would be better to blow it up and start over. The article created by John Pack Lambert represents the starting over. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Alan Hall (biologist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I nominate this for deletion. The problems with the article are as follows:


 * 1) The original author clearly has an in-depth understanding of Dr Hall's contributions to science as a research scientist.  This would take several hours of research for someone unconnected to the subject.  This strongly implies that the article is an autobiography, which is frowned upon.
 * 2) I find little coverage of Dr Hall himself.  He claims to be working at Cambridge but I can't find his academic homepage on the Cantabrigian website.  This is something that all academics invariably have to let colleagues contact them.
 * 3) I suspect he doesn't meet the very stringent requirements of WP:PROF; this might be because it's WP:TOOSOON.

The situation is complicated by the fact that there is another Alan Hall, born 1952, who not only shares the same name but is also British and is also a cancer researcher. That Alan Hall is a professor at the Sloan-Kettering Institute and was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1999 and clearly does meet WP:PROF. The subject of the article is "Alan K. Hall", but there are also other researchers with the name "AK Hall". Le petit fromage (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I am very confused about this. Alan Hall leads to a footballer called Allan Hall. There is no other Alan Hall candidate on wikipedia. The year of birth on this page is obviously incorrect (unless he really did take up a post-doctoral fellowship at the age of 15), but what little other information there is is genuine. Papers arising from his time at Cambridge are dated 1995-ish, so maybe he's moved on. My feeling is that this page was put up not by Alan Hall himself but someone close to him – family member or student/fan. Since it is all true and valid, it shouldn't be deleted, but expanded to incorporate/be the Sloan-Kettering one (who is not on wp) but ought to be. I have written to him to see what he says (if anything). -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 11:48, wikitime=  03:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. It's a straightforward academic bio that explicitly meets the requirements of WP:PROF beyond any conceivable doubt because of the FRS. I gather the problem is simply that there are two people of this name, and they need to be sorted out. The listing of someone's research projects as derived  from the titles of their papers is a routine exercise, and does not require personal knowledge.  DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the confusion. Alan Hall the footballer is "inherently notable" by virtue of the fact that he happened to be on a particular field, being paid, while a ball was kicked around by other people being paid.  Alan Hall FRS is notable because he meets WP:PROF.  Neither are the subject of this particular article. The former has an article elsewhere - the latter currently doesn't have one. Le petit fromage (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. We need a source for the FRS asserted in the article. Also the Alan Hall mentioned here: would be notable but does not appear to be the same Alan Hall in the article. Geogene (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh FFS please pay attention this article is largely an autobiography by Alan Hall (born 1963) - (I think he knows his own age). He is not FRS, but there is another guy with the same name who is.  He is the subject of .  Alan Hall FRS was educated at Oxford (BA/MA), Harvard (PhD), and worked at Edinburgh, Zürich, UCL and the Sloan-Kettering Institute.  This Alan Hall, the subject of this biography was educated at Aston (BSc) and Hull (PhD), then worked at Yale and Cambridge  They are two people with the same name but with different identitities - seriously how hard is this to grasp?. Le petit fromage (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ....Yes. That's why I removed the FRS and Gairdner Prize from the article. Is there anything else in there that needs to go? Geogene (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete the notability criteria for academics is at WP:NACADEMIC. None of those criteria are met here. Geogene (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Alan Hall FRS is notable. The other one probably isn't. But right now we seem to have some kind of mashup article on the two of them, making it unclear whose AfD this is. Geogene appears to be working to push the article to be about the non-notable one only. This seems to be the wrong direction to me. Is there some reason we can't rewrite the article to be clearly and only about the notable one? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The bulk of the biographical content is about the non-notable one, but was formerly salted with the other's achievements that would confer notability. Those I have removed. I don't oppose this suggestion, but it would require the greater amount of re-writing, to the point of WP:TNT. Geogene (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT with no prejudice against creating a new article on Alan Hall FRS. Even if we do eventually have such an article (and I think we probably should), there's no reason to leave this mess in the history. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, David Eppstein is exactly right. The notable Alan Hall deserves an article, but leaving this edit history behind will just confuse future editors. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT as David Eppstein points out. Should future articles of any other person named Alan Hall be attempted, care should be prevented to not create a Frankenstein article assembled from parts of different Alan Halls. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Most of the article is about the biologist. Only the first half of the first paragraph is open to debate.  If you binned this and started again, what would you call it?  NB I have written to the school stated, but they are unable to help because they keep records only 7 years.  Nor can the Royal Society help, because they don't keep bios on Fellows, apart from obit pieces.  I always think it a weak argument to be on the side of future editors who may get confused (poor dears). --  Unbuttered parsnip  (talk) mytime= Wed 15:35, wikitime=  07:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment makes no sense given the information that you've been given above (granted, only about 3 times). Le petit fromage (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Information? I see no information, not even once.  I see "information", i.e. uncited assertions derived from subjective interpretations.  No matter how strident and insulting you become Le petit fromage, I am unswayed.  Hence my name.
 * The article's title is Alan Hall (biologist) and that is what it is about for the most part – all the career achievements relate to that man. Granted there may be some suspect elements in the bio data, but these can be removed.  It seems to me that an unrelated Alan Hall chose to "have a laugh".  That is no grounds for deletion of the article.  I see many examples every day of vandalism, often incorporating the vandal's name or partner's.  That is no reason to delete the article, all that is required is to remove the vandalised parts.  This is made difficult here because the article changed names, peharps more than once.  Still no reason to delete.
 * -- Unbuttered parsnip  (talk) mytime= Fri 14:39, wikitime=  06:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Responding with inane word salads will get you nowhere. Go back and read what was said. Le petit fromage (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Frankenarticle, create new stub for FRS. Samsara 02:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Repurpose into an article on Alan Hall (born 1952). This might essentially be delete this article, but I think we need to be sure to make one on the other Alan Hall immidiately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I just created the article Alan Hall (born 1952). I used two of the sources linked to above. It could use at lot of fixing by someone who has a better grasp of what exactly Dr. Hall does than I do. I think this illustrates a weakness in Wikipedia. We do not have as good coverage of major living scientist as we could have, and our coverage is often of people who are not really that important, but have either tried to promote themselves or had close friends do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete After reading through the whole discussion I have realized that this article should be deleated. No reason to burden the other one with a wrong edit history.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2015 (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.