Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Haugland


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Steven   Zhang  Get involved in DR! 00:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Dick Haugland

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article reads like a resume. "Sources" are simply links to homepages. Nothing substantial at all about this guy. I think he fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:PROF. v/r - TP 23:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Google Scholar search for R P Haugland gives an h-index of 58 with a couple of papers cited more than 1000 times. This gives an overwhelming pass of WP:Prof in the field of Chemistry, a field that is cited only moderately. Having said that, the BLP is not well written and needs pruning at least. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC).
 * Regardless of WP:PROF, WP:V and WP:BLP come into play here. We have a huge biography of a living person that has zero reliable sources at all.  Not a single one.--v/r - TP 14:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. There are numerous sources that prove notability (his enormous citation record) and that is sufficient for this article to exist (which is what we're debating here). I agree that the article is large and there aren't many sources for the information within the article. That suggests appropriate pruning to eliminate WP:OR. The distinction between the article's existence and its contents is subtle, but crucial. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
 * Actually, you are completely wrong. WP:N is not and never has been license to ignore WP:BLP and WP:V.  The entire article will have to be "pruned" because the entire article is WP:OR until sources are found.  You cannot have a WP:BLP without reliable sources.  WP:PROF, being a notability guideline is still superseded by WP:V.  Find sources or the only outcome any administrator closing this AFD can make is delete per BLP and V.  When you say "there aren't many sources", you mean there are no sources; check them yourself.  Not a one is about the subject.--v/r - TP 17:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * With very highly cited people like Dr. Haugland, it's usually a trivial exercise to find lots of additional supporting WP:RS for the content. I found several sources in a few minutes and incorporated them into a new lead-in. You could have easily done the same, but perhaps you did not bother to check. Rest assured this article will be kept, again because Haugland passes WP:PROF #1 by a large margin. You may quibble with the content (and again, I think that needs work), but his notability is not in question. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
 * Or, alternatively, since you seem to know more about the field than I, you could've simply provided the sources in the first place instead of a drive by !vote knowing the issue was sourcing on a BLP. Now that it's sourced, I have no other concerns and this can be closed.--v/r - TP 22:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know nothing of the field. I'm not a chemist, nor had I ever heard of Haugland before this AfD. I do know how to check for citations and sources, though. As I said, it took only a few minutes. Please follow WP:BEFORE next time. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
 * Keep per above.BennyHillbilly (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep. WoS concurs with Xxanthippe's GS findings. He has an enormous citation record: 497, 447, 406, ... with an H-index of 42. This is many standard deviations above our usual borderline range of 10-15 and conclusive pass of WP:PROF #1. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2012 (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.