Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David F. Percy


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 04:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

David F. Percy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:Notability (academics) Pdcook (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2009 (
 * Delete I don't see any claims of notability here. Maybe we should make a general rule that no one named "David Percy" is ever notable? Brianyoumans (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Added additional information. Additional referenced sources around Fellowships of two national bodies added. Information on work for National Lottery Commission added, EPSRC, organising International Conefernce for IMA, his place on their council etc. Hope this is now enough, but I can make it more solid if anyone else required additional notability. Steve-Ho (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - If he meets the threshold for inclusion, then everyone here, here and here also does. Most of them have received a federal grant of some sort and have served on many boards, councils, etc. Can you explain which number from Notability_(academics) David F. Percy meets?


 * I don't want to get into a debate about if the staff you note meet WP:PROF - many may, it's just that no-one has created wikipedia pages for them yet. Percy I would argue meets WP:PROF under - 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (as evidenced in the article, is currently fellow of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications and was fellow of Royal Statistical Society) and 5. The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (has personal chair, appointed by University of Salford in 2008, again referenced in the article) Steve-Ho (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications and Royal Statistical Society are "highly selective" and at the same level as National Academy of Sciences, then I agree he meets criterion 3. As for criterion 5, perhaps in the physical sciences a "named chair" means something different than it does in business. For example, Ronald T. Raines is a Henry Lardy Professor of Biochemistry. So I guess if David Percy has an equivalent position, he meets criterion 5. Thanks for your hard work! Pdcook (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The RSS is not selective; all its members are known as fellows, as our article on it clearly states. As for IMA Fellow (not to be confused with that other IMA at the University of Minnesota), it seems to be based more on length of membership than accomplishments, so again I would say it is insufficient. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep due to the personal chair (WP:PROF). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to weak delete due to the continued lack of evidence that he actually has a personal chair (see discussion below), nor that he passes any other criterion of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO, at least not in a way that meets WP:V. The link for his profile on the article does not even list him by name. I could not find evidence of the subject’s alleged chair or distinguished professor appointment, which would support keeping under WP:PROF criterion #5; or of meeting WP:PROF criterion #3 (elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association; fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor). In terms of citations, I do not think he meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), since GS gives a lifetime total of 287 citations and an h-index of 9.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The link is now fixed to his profile Steve-Ho (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unless cites on WoS are better than those on GS (h = 7). Xxanthippe (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete, despite the apparent personal chair. Yes, we usually allow universities to be the judge, we simply follow their lead, etc.  But Salford is embarrassing itself here, and this particular former polytechnic has demonstrated just how deep these places sometimes dig to come up with professors: 12 whole journal articles and you're in!  I've seen several instances of so-called professors in the UK who have achieved their position entirely through brown-nosing, and I'm not troubled in the slightest by exercising some independent judgement in this particular case.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a serious bit of a lack of NPOV "these places" etc - The University of Salford has never been a Polytechnic - it was a University in 1967 when it was formed as one of the Plate Glass Universities. I have no idea why he was awarded a Professor - perhaps it was in recognition of the wider impact of his work. Steve-Ho (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize this isn't quite post-1992 (though it was in fact a polytechnic, earlier). But the decision to make this guy a professor gives it that flavour.  I too have no idea why he's a professor.  But I've seen enough dodgy professors here to take it with a grain of salt when I see 12 journal articles.  If this article doesn't get deleted I won't go crying to DRV.  I'm simply trying to offer a view rooted in my own version of common sense.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Pardon my ignorance for the way things are done in the UK, but I couldn't find anything about a "personal chair" in this reference. Is it assumed in the UK system that if someone is called a professor then they have a personal chair? Pdcook (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's easy: no. I used the term following others' lead -- but it appears that you are right in thinking he is a professor but not a personal chair.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2009 (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.