Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Morris (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 Speedy keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Anupmehra - Let's talk!  00:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Brian Morris (biologist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I do not feel this man is notable enough to warrant an article. He is known within the circumcision research community as a rabid supporter of the procedure. He is known as a bit of an oddball. Obsessed with circumcision almost. He runs his own procirc website. Outside of this he is barely known. Tremello (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  20:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  20:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:PROF given h-index of 37 (though his name is so common this could be inflated).  Jinkinson   talk to me  20:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you explain the how you got the h-index number? According to the citation metrics section of WP:PROF the h-index isn't an adequate way to measure notability.  No doubt he has done some important work though. His main disciplines - the ones he is actually qualified for are molecular biology, molecular genetics and hypertension research - he hasn't produced anything notable.  Also, most of his work is with a team of people.  A lot of the articles that give him a high h-index might be circumcision articles.  Plus he hasn't made any breakthroughs or carried out research himself in the field of circumcision - most of his articles are review articles and critiques of previous research studies.  He is merely just a commentator on circumcision.  He hasn't conducted any experiments himself.  Tremello (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Judging on his academic career, he's apparently in Who's Who Australia . I take no position on the circumcision business, however the article should explain why he's notable (i.e. his research work) rather than any additional political advocacy and may need WP:CLEANUP. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding who's who, sorry but I don't believe that. Pretty sure that is nonsense. You say "apparently". How do you know? Tremello (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. WP:AFD is not the place to promote an agenda. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it matters whether I believe it or not because nobody else will believe it if you do not provide proof. Tremello (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really, there is already broad consensus on AFD that the views of independent professionals who specialise in judging notability is extremely relevant. That's the thing about consensus - you can disagree with it, but you'll be in the minority.  It's also considered quite rude to respond to each post with vague, baseless and pointless assertions. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I feel he fails the "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? Seems to me he doesn't stand out significantly enough to warrant an article. See here his bio page at Sydney University. He has a few awards and a few credits to his name but he hasn't produced amazing groundbreaking work that has changed the face of his discipline (hypertension). He wasn't responsible for any breakthrough.  Of the 9 criteria on [WP:PROF]]  I don't think he fulfills any. Note that professor emeritus is simply a title given to a retiring professor. Tremello (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I struck your delete != "vote," since you nominated it for deletion, and that counts as your one "vote." You are still welcome to comment. Edison (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How can the Average Professor Test be invoked to discount someone for not having "produced amazing groundbreaking work that has changed the face of his discipline"? The main reason for keeping the APT around is to ensure that people won't hold "amazing," "groundbreaking" and "changing the face of the discipline" as the bar for notability. How much "above average" is needed for the APT is, and probably will always be, debated, but it is about above average, not Nobel Prize worthy. Per others, Strong Keep. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PROF. He has many highly cited publications, e.g. (using the numbers from Google scholar) citation counts of 436, 332, 289, 276, 238, etc. There is also a plausible case for passing criterion C2 via the Dahl lectureship (I think the other awards are not at a high enough level for this criterion, though.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You act like the Dahl award is a big award. According to the website "The Lewis K. Dahl Memorial Lecture was established in 1988 by the Council for High Blood Pressure Research in honor of Dr. Dahl’s pioneering work on the relations between salt, the kidney and hypertension, and for establishing a major genetically based experimental model of hypertension (Dahl salt-sensitive rat)."  So you are suggesting that Morris deserves an award for his contribution to the field of hypertension research??  Yet Dahl himself doesn't even have a Wikipedia article.  Also, do all the other recipients of the Dahl award listed on the website deserve a page in Wikipedia?  To qualify for c2 it needs to be at the national or international level.  Is the Dahl award even considered at the national or international level?  I think they mean honours and awards bestowed by the country's government or major society or official international health organisation.  The American heart Association is merely one of many not for profit organisations.  Regarding the high number of citations, see my comment above.  That doesn't automatically mean he warrants a page in an encyclopedia. Tremello (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You did notice that it was an award given by a (major) American medical society to an Australian researcher, right? That's international. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep with an h-index of 59 obtained by searching for "B J Morris" in Google scholar stunningly passes WP:Prof in a highly cited field. I find this nomination strange. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC).
 * jinkinson said it was 37 now you say it is a "stunning" 59. How do you calculate this number? Plus is being the owner of a lot of widely cited articles the best way to decide whether he deserves an article?  Plus a lot of his articles are with other people.  Seems inconsistent to give him an article and not them.  Using google scholar you can see the articles that are heavily cited.  I don't think he made "stunning" breakthroughs in his career.  Maybe you or someone else can convince me otherwise. Tremello (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Count it yourself and tell us what you find. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC).
 * I calculate h-indices using this tool on Google Scholar, and in this case i typed in "author:"Morris BJ" Sydney" since Morris is such a common last name. Jinkinson   talk to me  20:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Re "I find this nomination strange" - After reviewing the single-purpose nature of Tremello's edits within this topic area, I don't find this nomination by this particular editor surprising.  05:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Using another reliable source, WoS, I get an h-index of 39 for the query "AUTHOR: (morris bj) Refined by: ORGANIZATIONS-ENHANCED: (UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY) Timespan: All years. Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI". He probably wrote some early papers at other institutions where he evidently post-doc'ed at, so those would not be included here. I'll note that the concept of "stunning breakthroughs" is subjective and not at all what is required for keeping. His citations demonstrate that his work has been duly noted by his peers, i.e. WP:PROF c1, and that is wholly sufficient. Agricola44 (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep per PROF. It doesn't matter to Wikipedia if a scholar is unknown outside of his or her chosen field; very few scientists are household names.  At Wikipedia, notability, not fame, is what counts. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note investigate possible canvassing by, please see and .  This was performed after improper removal (twice) of the WP:PROD template by Tremello after it was removed the first time, see initial PROD, its removal, and the the two subsequent reverts by Tremello here and here restoring the PROD template against the template instructions.   05:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep I checked Web of Science (usually giving much lower citation rates than GS) and find 10 articles cited >100, over 6000 (six THOUSAND) citations in total, and an h-index of 43. No doubt at all that this passes WP:ACADEMIC#1. Any article issues can be handled on the article talk page. As for the canvassing, that is borderline admissible, as Tremello did not ask anybody to come here and !vote "delete", just asked them to come and give their opinion. I strongly suggest the nom to withdraw this AfD or that it be closed speedily per WP:SNOW, because continuing this discussion is an absolute wast of the community's time. --Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Second the motion for nom to withdraw. The conclusion is already definitive. Continued listing is a waste of valuable editor-hours. Agricola44 (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Important Comment about H-index calculations: I think there are two Brian J. Morrises.  One is this Australian chap who is a molecular biologist; the other is a neuropsychologist from Glasgow University, and the author of the book Molecular Biology of the Neuron.  I don't know whether this is enough to mess up people's h-indices. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This could have affected my calculation (two people with exactly the same name in the same field). However, the filtered results make the position clear. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC).
 * In principle that could be a problem, but I searched for "Morris BJ AND Australia", so that should have avoided the other BJM. Also, I checked the titles of the 10 highest-cited articles and they all were on the subjects that "our" BJM works on. --Randykitty (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that my WoS query (furnished above) filters on "UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY". Agricola44 (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Keep per high h-index, which gives a clear pass of WP:PROF. An incomprehensible nomination. -- 101.114.47.159 (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * On checking the nom's record, this nomination smells of WP:POINT. Given the fact that everybody else is unanimous, it might be time for WP:SNOW (though it is not quite winter yet in Australia). -- 101.114.47.159 (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: He is, it seems, most notable for his circumcision advocacy. I would support giving that more prominence in the article. 24.131.136.147 (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). I conducted a GS-based citation analysis for "Brian Morris" with the following keyword-based restrictions: biology "University of Sydney" Australia. Even with these restrictions, which should go a long way toward ruling out false positives (and actually lead to many false negatives), the h-index turned out to be 39.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:46, 11 April 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.