Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley C. Edwards


 * 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. Deor (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Bradley C. Edwards

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested prod. Although this person has had some involvement with a notable concept there's nothing to indicate that he himself is notable and deserves his own encyclopaedia article. He appears to have written a couple of papers and that's all. He was the director of some sort of institute that no longer seems to exist and has left no significant traces. This reads like a vanity article. andy (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The article Bradley C. Edwards was updated on 24-8 in an attempt to "fix it"Mion (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep His citations would appear to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC:1. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Howso? --Ronz (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Google scholar shows 12 of his works that have been cited by 11 or more others, which gives him an h-index of at least 11 and Google Scholar is almost always lower than Web of Science, which has more complete citations. Combine this with the absolute number of 409 for his most cited work on Google Scholar and my read is that his "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline" 24.151.10.165 (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you figure that when h-index reckons that a score of 11 isn't even enough for tenure, and is far away from enough for a senior post? andy (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A h index of 11 would include most scientists that exist. That's clearly too low a threshold. Second Quantization (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've stumbled across Edwards' LinkedIn profile. There's nothing in the profile to make one think he merits his own WP article, but it explains why he seemed to have disappeared from the web in 2005 (with the exception of one interview in 2009) - he stopped doing the visionary stuff and had a worthwhile but unprofound mainstream job. As far as I can see the space elevator thing was a brief flurry of activity that in the end took him nowhere, so he spent several years doing ordinary stuff and is now trying again with a startup. andy (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep There is little doubt we will have space elevators in the future as the materials can handle it and its more about approach and costs as such, any publication and its authors are notable to make a proper timeline (in time) on Wikipedia.Mion (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you explain further, and indicate how he is notable? --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * my first question to you is, do you think as an editor to the article of space elevators, will there be 1 (or more) space elevators in 400 years time ? Not saying you should wp:crystal, but saying we have articles we invest time in and some we dont. We open end them. Mion (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What's that got to do with the price of beans? This isn't a discussion about the viability of space elevators but about the notability of one person who made an interesting contribution to the subject a few years ago and has done nothing else as far as I can see. He didn't invent the idea, or stand it on its head, he merely explored and tweaked it. He seems to have no presence outside of the subject, and doesn't even seem to be active any more. andy (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, Edwards is the most important figure in Space Elevators since Clarke. He supercedes them all.  He did the major major work that got all the modern activity in motion.  Skyway (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * i see, we agree that he "made an interesting contribution to the subject a few years ago",lets expand on that he published in 2002, 1 book in 2003 and 1 book in 2006 on space elevators covering the deployment scenario, climber design, power delivery system, orbital debris avoidance, anchor system, surviving atomic oxygen, avoiding lightning and hurricanes by locating the anchor in the western equatorial Pacific, construction costs, construction schedule, and environmental hazards. By doing that he transformed the whole approach on space elevators from fiction into an approachable engineering project with challenges. And thats exactly what makes him notable. There is no requirement to keep publishing to stay notable, i think. Cheers Mion (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The two keep arguments are silly, on the one hand, a h-index of 11 is very low, so he fails WP:ACADEMIC, and on the other some argument about WP:CRYSTALBALL significance is another non-argument. Fails WP:BASIC == no article, Second Quantization (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect or merge to space elevator per WP:BIO1E. On the one hand, the citation record does indicate that he's the world's leading expert on space elevators. On the other, everything there is to be said about his work on space elevators makes more sense to say as part of the space elevator article than as part of a biography, and there doesn't appear to be much else of note to say about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete He has not been cited enough to pass point one of academic notability. His current company might break uncharted ground, and he might become a leader in developing the space elevator. However, he isn't yet, so any speculation on this is currently beyond the scope. We cover what has occurred, we do not guess on what the future will bring.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * His current company is irrelevant to the discussion and has nothing to do with space elevators. Mion (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject is a giant in the Space Elevator world. He was the mover and shaker in the early oughts.  He's the man who caused everyone to "stop laughing" (referring to a quote from  Clarke) and get to work doing the serious engineering.  Extremely notable.  Think "Goddard".  That he hasn't done as much with regard to Space Elevators in recent years is completely irrelevant.  It's a silly fallacy to suggest that one needs to continue to do notable things for earlier things to remain notable. Notability is a requirement for the subject of an article to have.  Notability is not how well the article proves that the subject has notability.  So the article is a "stub", so what?  That the article may not yet demonstrate notability doesn't mean the subject isn't notable.  Arguments about lacking "academic notability" are immaterial because Edwards is not purported here to be an academic, his notability is as an engineer who's works and publications had a major impact on Space Elevator development.  The article is flawed like every other stub, that doesn't make it deletable for notability, not in the least. Skyway (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, so if he is so notable in his own right (as opposed to the topic of the Space Elevator itself) then where are the references? That article has been in existence for six years but hasn't gathered any, not even from his supporters after this AfD started. A Google search such as "bradley c edwards" -wiki gets only 180 English language hits plus a few in other languages, almost all of which are completely irrelevant, not reliable sources, third-hand accounts or not even about this particular man. I hear people arguing that he ought to be notable and indeed must be notable, but very few reliable sources. Poor going for a giant.andy (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That search is misleading. People are not normally referred to by the initial of their middle name. A Google search for "Bradley Edwards"+"space elevator"-wiki produces 69 pages of results (ie more than 680 results), which probably all refer to him. The same search with "Brad" produces 345 results. More loosely worded searches produce in excess of 1000 results, which is all that Google will let you look at. James500 (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that you haven't quality-tested these ghits. At even a quick glance I see blogs (inadmissible per WP:EL), articles where he only gets a passing reference (inadmissible per WP:EL), bookstores, mirror sites, copies of his papers, etc. Any loose search on most topics will turn up zillions of hits. andy (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't advancing an argument for retention. I was merely pointing out that your argument for deletion is based on a number that is severalfold smaller than the real number. And I don't think a quick glance is enough to prove anything. I think you need to look at all of them. James500 (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me list a few from the hits that are not matching your discription shikawa says the space elevator is designed largely around the published work of US physicist Bradley Edwards, who has done extensive calculations on the space-elevator concept over the last decade, International Academy of Astronautics, International Space Elevator ConsortiumInternational Space Elevator Consortium - space elevator in depth the history of the space elevator, there are more links in the article and have a look here for a better understanding.Mion (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Good question there, andy. Besides, WP:NRVE clearly states that "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". ——JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And NRVE then spectacularly contradicts itself by saying that an article should not be deleted if it is likely that significant coverage exists, something that is practically indistinguishable from inherent notability. James500 (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the H-index is not relevant as the amount of research papers on space elevators is low, in that perspective compared to the number of research papers the number of citations is on the high side, but he is not going for 1 on WP:ACADEMIC he goes for .7 The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Thats for notability. As for the search results, you said almost all which are completely irrelevant, it suggests some are valid for notability and relevant, can you provide me these links ? thanks Mion (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me help you a bit, ISEC(The 2014 Space Elevator Conference 22-24 aug) which is hosted on the Microsoft servers  lists Bradley C. Edwards 3 times on [,NASA lists him on [] each of the studies that reference him is an independent reference to his work. Pls fill me in for what i missed here. Mion (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The article simply lack sources to prove that the subject meets WP:BLP. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC


 * No attempt at all to discuss on the talk page before dragging to the chopping block
 * This AFD process is invalid IMO. I suggest putting an immediate halt to it as it has circumvented a normal, stable, discussion process on the talk page.  Ordinarily, an article would have a reasonably mature discussion on the talk page first.  Everyone would be up to speed.  Here there was no discussion at all.  Let's everyone retire to the talk page and hash it out there like normal.
 * The fundamental problem is that the article is deficient in showing how the subject is notable (while some argue instead that the the article cannot be fixed because the subject isn't notable). If the topic had been raised (as normal) on the talk page instead of here, there would have been time and opportunity 1) to improve it, or 2) to have more thorough searches by more knowledgeable editors behind the assertions that there are no good sources. Let's put us back on that proper track. Skyway (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no requirement for prior talk page discussion in the AfD process. I don't see why we should stop the discussion now. And I find your use of section headers for your comments here to be obnoxious and disruptive; I would have reformatted them myself if someone else hadn't already done so first. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * maybe the no requirement in general is true that you dont need discussion to put up and afd, but i like to note that after i blocked the prod of Bradley_C._Edwards because the main page space elevator is still frequently edited and editors on that page should be notified if one of the main names on that page get deleted. I asked Andy to step into discussion on the talkpage of space elevator about this. Well he ignored the request, put here the AFD online and did not notify me (i was involved in the PROD) and he didn't leave a notice on the talkpage of space elevator, i think its evading behaviour, in short i feel like Skyway that the other frequent editors on space elevators should have been invited to an rfc to how to proceed. Mion (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Then invite them! andy (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I did, see Talk:Space_elevator on 22:43, 18 August 2014 :) Mion (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - This subject passes GNG. See, for example "Elevator Man: Bradley Edwards Reaches for the Heights," from Space.com (Feb. 18, 2005). Carrite (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment:. If you check the references you'll see that they mostly relate to the publicity surrounding his publications. This is more a case of being notable for one event than general notability, and WP:1E says that probably goes to the notability of the space elevator rather than Edwards. In fact when you search for references you'll find precious few. QED. andy (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Multiple papers with 100+ cites. James500 (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. It's not a question of "never mind the quality feel the width". andy (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this only because of a recent AfD where it was said that "multiple papers with over 100 citations is notability in any field whatsoever". And there are papers in GScholar with 409, 103 and 102 cites repectively and his name is listed first on the last two. James500 (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Except there aren't more than 100 citations. Check on Google Scholar for the titles of his papers:Bold text low citation rate. The main Google web search throws up a lot of chaff - translations, repetitions, mirrors, secondary references, tertiary references... Google Scholar is properly indexed to count citations and it doesn't count all that many. For example allintitle: "The Space Elevator" author:Edwards yields 24 results, including the original document, and much less than an armful of citations. Sorry, but those are the real facts. andy (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What you say makes no sense to me . I can't fathom what the search you propose is meant to prove. James500 (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The person clearly meets WP:GNG, even if only because he's been interviewed several times, in a non peripheral way, and he has appeared in TV programs including SPACE ELEVATOR - NOVA SCIENCE NOW - Discovery/Space/Universe. The suggestion by James5000 that WP:1E disqualifies is flawed because that talks about single events, but he's famous for work that he did over some years, and he's also an author and well respected researcher. I agree that he's borderline on a strict publication count on WP:ACADEMIC, but that's irrelevant because he so clearly meets WP:GNG.GliderMaven (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That suggestion was not made by me it was made by User:Andyjsmith. James500 (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This pagespace bears little resemblance to the page nominated for deletion. Applied sources put this subject way past GNG. BusterD (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Searches for either 'Brad/Bradley Edwards + elevator' in GBooks produce relevant material from quite a few books and periodicals which does, one examines what is said, look like significant coverage. Periodicals include Aerospace Engineering, Air and Space Smithsonian, Atlanta Magazine, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Business 2.0, Chicago Journal of International Law, Etiqueta Negra, New Scientist, Popular Science, Pratigoyita Darpan, and Profil. According to "Nanotechnology for Dummies" there is also an article in Discover. The books are published by American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Apogee, Information Science Reference (ie IGI Global), Knopf Doubleday (ie Random House), MIT, Phaidon, University of Toronto, and Wiley. (I mention the names to indicate how large the number of sources is and how diverse they are). As for his importance, Popular Science certainly describes him as the chief advocate for the space elevator. James500 (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's two !votes. One only please. andy (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's two, can someone point to User:James500's first? James500 has made a number of comments, but I clicked through the whole process history, and found only the single bolded keep assertion. BusterD (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Soz. He left a comment without properly indenting so it became attached to someone else's Keep. I've now indented it. andy (talk) 13:54, 29 August 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.