Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Adams (optometrist)


 * 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. If nominator wants an article to be expanded/improved, they are advised to discuss it on the respective article's talk page not at WP:AFD. We here only discuss whether a subject is eligible for inclusion or not on Wikipedia. They are also requested to perform few checks BEFORE nominating an article for deletion. Please note that WP:Deletion is not cleanup. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  14:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Anthony Adams (optometrist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of how this person has made any notable contribution to the field of optometry. Victor Victoria (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep If you had looked through the article history (WP:BEFORE), you would have seen that a PROD was denied because "EIC of well established international journal, meets WP:PROF#8". The journal is Optometry and Vision Science. --Randykitty (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I will not withdraw my nomination until his contributions to the field of optometry are better detailed in the article. I'm sorry, but writing an article in the journal Optometry and Vision Science just doesn't do it for me. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read again. Publishing an article in a journal, even the most prestigious one, would not be a reason to !vote "keep". Being the EIC (editor-in-chief) of a respected international journal is. Please read the appropriate guideline (WP:ACADEMIC). --Randykitty (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Being the Editor in Chief of a journal just means that he assigns reviewers for papers that are submitted (and he has the last word on whether to accept a paper). Although it may sound like a big honor, it really isn't. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then you should have the (accepted) guidelines revised, because those explicitly mention that being an EIC makes a researcher notable. Note also, that this only goes if the journal is a reputable one, we're not talkin predatory open access journals here. And being an EIC is indeed not an honor, it's a tough job including a lot of hard work with a lot of responsibility. That responsibility is exactly the reason that publishers do not give this job to just anybody. And if you really think that being an EIC "just means that he assigns reviewers for papers", I'm afraid you still have a lot to learn about academic publishing. --Randykitty (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's just agree that the work entailed in being an editor in chief of an academic journal is irrelevant to whether or not the article should be kept. As for the criteria enumerated in WP:ACADEMIC, the paragraph following the criteria states that The criteria above are sometimes summed up in an "Average Professor Test". Put simply: when judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field? I submit that the article, as currently written, fails to convey that the subject of the biography surpasses "the Average Professor Test" and with all due respect, being honored with the title of Editor-in-Chief of the Optometry and Vision Science journal is a minuscule step above "the average professor". Victor Victoria (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a "minuscule step". Only a very small proportion of scientists ever become EIC of a respected journal. And whether the article 'as currently written, fails to convey that the subject of the biography surpasses "the Average Professor Test"', now that is really, really, REALLY besides the point. (AfD is not for cleanup, remember?) And one of the first things (WP:BEFORE) you do when contemplating an AfD for a scholar is to see whether they had an impact on their field. A simple Google Scholar search shows a list of articles each one cited hundreds of times. Now please stop wasting our time. --Randykitty (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * True, only a small proportion of scientists ever become EIC of a respected journal, but many more are asked and decline, because outside of Wikipedia, this "honor" is not much of an honor. Victor Victoria (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it starts looking like you have absolutely no clue about what constitutes notability for an academic. With the current pressure to "publish or perish", it's only logical that being an EIC (the person who can accept or reject your paper) is one of the more prestigious things in academia. Where you get the idea that this is a WP-specific thing is a mystery to me. As an academic myself, I can guarantee you that in real life it is the same. Only notable people get asked to be the EIC of an established journal. --Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as Randykitty says, editor of major journal, Dean at a major university.  And, pace User talk:Victor Victoria AFD is not the place to argue that articles are paltry.  The question here is whether the subject is notable.  This academic clearly is.  The thing to do is to speedy keep and tag  it: Needs improvement.ShulMaven (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE - he's had literally thousands of cites at Google Scholar. Bearian (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - certainly a person who has made a notable contribution to the field of optometry, and well done to the users who cleaned up the article a bit in the past day.  " Pepper "  @ 05:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sadly, the cleanup resulted in a reduction in the article size, not an expansion of the article. Of course, whether an article is a stub has no bearing on whether it should be kept or deleted, but it appears that with notability of just being an editor in chief of a journal, there is not much to write the subject. Although another Wikipedian claims that the subject of the article has a large Google presence, it's not readily apparent (at least to me) that this large Google presence is due to significant contributions to the field of optometry. Victor Victoria (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sadly, you keep failing to grasp how things work in science, if you really think that thousands of papers citing Adams' work does not show significant contributions to his field. We're not talking simple Ghits here, this is GScholar and the "cited by" figure below each "hit" show the numbers of other scientific papers that have referenced that particular paper. --Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2014 (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.