Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas W. Hubbard (2nd nomination)




 * 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. BD2412 T 00:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Douglas W. Hubbard
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I'd also wager that User:DrKDP, User:Hubbardaie, and Douglas W. Hubbard are all one and the same. – Ploni (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See also Articles for deletion/Applied information economics. –Ploni (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Economics. Ploni (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete It is a bad sign when half the sources are by the subject, and it does not get better from there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the comment about userIDs was meant for Ploni above. 2601:249:1180:AB30:2C90:31CE:4140:E051 (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I have always disclosed that HubbardAIE is the username of Doug Hubbard (me) in Wikipedia. The name clearly does not attempt to hide that.  I have no idea who DrKDP is though and I'm not sure why you would assume otherwise. 2601:249:1180:AB30:2107:C4B5:D5E6:8A84 (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Doug Hubbard here. What is the actual metric for notability which is uniformly applied?  For example, for an author, what would be sufficient to be notable?  This might include number of books written/sold, universities using those books, independent professional certifications requiring those books, number of articles written including peer-reviewed, number of citations by other research sources, etc. 2601:249:1180:AB30:9CC7:CFA1:2960:BF5D (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing really in terms of referencing independent of the subject or WP:SIGCOV. The level of self-promotion might even merit a WP:TNT delete. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Doug Hubbard here again. My work in books and peer-reviewed articles and their influence is easily verified and open to the public for critical review.  If you decide it is notable, then I'm sure there is plenty of publicly available information for a neutral, objective article.  Of course, the standards of Wikipedia should be followed for all individuals.  It would be helpful to know what the objective standard for notable would be (see my note above).  Thanks for your consideration. 2601:249:1180:AB30:9CC7:CFA1:2960:BF5D (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:NBASIC and WP:NAUTHOR. SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Doug Hubbard Here. This is why I'm interested in the specific, measurable criteria.  I've written four books translated into 5 other languages.  The first book is required reading for Society of Actuaries exam prep. Over 170,000 copies have been sold.  My books and articles, including peer-reviewed (IBM R&D Journal, The American Statistician, etc.) have been cited over 1400 times according to ResearchGate.  I'm just wondering what the minimum number would be to meet the requirements of "widely cited" and what sources you use to count citations. 2601:249:1180:AB30:2091:681B:9D31:201C (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Doug Hubbard here (my apologies for not signing in but it's been years since I've touched any of this. I suppose I should reset my HubbardAIE password)
 * Looking at the previous nomination for deletion, I see that the "keep" votes were influence in part by the 800 citations just two of my books and the number of reviews of those books. I've written other books and the number of citations and reviews have only increased since then.  Should there be more mentions of those sources directly on the page?  I gather there would be COI issues if I added them myself during this process. 2601:249:1180:AB30:EC8E:AF3F:717C:76A3 (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have always disclosed that HubbardAIE is the username of Doug Hubbard (me) in Wikipedia. The name clearly does not attempt to hide that. I have no idea who DrKDP is though and I'm not sure why you would assume otherwise. See additional responses to other votes. 2601:249:1180:AB30:EC8E:AF3F:717C:76A3 (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have seen Hubbard's work cited by numerous commentators in online fora such as LinkedIn. He wrote a couple of articles for OR/MS Today and Analytics, non-archival publications of the Institute for Operations Research and Managements Sciences (INFORMS),m which have in turn been multiply cited in INFORMS and other publications and presentations. I don't follow the archival academic literature all that closely, but he is most certainly well known and highly regarded by practitioners of my acquaintance.  I vote to keep his article.
 * --Doug Samuelson, President, InfoLogix, Inc., long-time Contributing Editor of OR/MS Today 96.241.11.99 (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that Samuelson and the subject have coauthored a paper together, as per WP:DISCUSSAFD. –Ploni (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We actually co-authored two papers together. But it's good that someone who is a credible published researcher and who is actually familiar with the field has a vote. See my previous comments, especially about the "keep" votes in the 2018 deletion nomination.  The reasons mentioned for "keep" votes (800 citations of just two of my books and large numbers of independent reviews) have only increased since then. 2601:249:1180:AB30:EC8E:AF3F:717C:76A3 (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:DISCUSSAFD also proposes not to participate in a nomination if "A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar." 2601:249:1180:AB30:EC8E:AF3F:717C:76A3 (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Found my old account. Will be using this now. Hubbardaie (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure but can I vote keep as long as I disclose WP:AVOIDCOI? If I misunderstood this rule, I'm sure reviewers can discount what I say, accordingly. I also disclose that I have co-authored two papers with Doug Samuelson, who voted recently.  (I notice he didn't use the convention of the bold "keep" in his response, though.)  This came up in a discussion we had about what constitutes "notable" regarding this nomination and he did this on his own.  Now, regarding the point of the nomination, I will only say that participants should consider the arguments previous 2018 nomination for deletion.  I've said this in replies to previous statements, but I'll repeat some points here under a proper account name.  The 800 Google Scholar citations of two of my books mentioned in a "keep" vote in the 2018 nomination for deletion have now increased considerably.  The first book, How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business, now has 1343 citations by itself.  My second book, The Failure of Risk Management: Why It's Broken and How to Fix It, has another 1380 citations of its own.  (I have two other books, but they are apparently not cited nearly as often as these first two.)  That still leaves 2723 total citations of just these first two books, more than 3 times the number which apparently merited a keep vote in the 2018 nomination.  Looking me up on researchgate.net, which caters a bit more to peer reviewed publications, will show over 1400 citations (I assume many are redundant of the 2723 mentioned above).  The keep votes of the previous nomination also mention the large number of independent reviews.  I'm not sure if the reviews they mention are from Amazon, Goodreads, or other independent sources, but whatever their source, the number of reviews has only grown since 2018.  I notice that I appear in a few other Wiki pages if that matters.  One is Probability Management, which specifically mentions the pseudo-random number generator I developed and how it is now part of the standard adopted by many simulation tools.  Unfortunately, it appears that my name in that article is not made into an active link.  If that's not enough, I can gather information about the other industry standards and graduate level courses that use my books and other articles I've written in peer-reviewed journals or various interviews in podcasts, etc.  Having said that, I would, of course, concede to whatever the group judgement would be on this article.  I believe Wikipedia is an important site and should uphold its standards. Hubbardaie (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Doug is an authority on risk management and has made significant contribution to the global risk profession. Numerous presentations at the largest online risk management conference RISK AWARENESS WEEK 2020, 2021 and 2022, , and  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riskacademy (talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure, Risk Academy has interviewed me. The founder organizes events and interviews thought leaders in risk management. Again, like Doug Samuelson, this is someone familiar with who is notable in this field.  Many of the people who will have some influence in this field and are widely cited will know each other. Hubbardaie (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep This is Dr. Sam L. Savage, Executive Director of ProbabilityManagement.org, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit co-founded with Harry Markowitz, Nobel Laureate in Economics. The primary mission of the nonprofit is to develop standards for communicating uncertainty as data that obey both the laws of arithmetic and the laws of probability. Doug is broadly influential as an author, among decision makers who face uncertainty. For this reason, I asked him to write the foreword to my latest book, Chancification (Harry Markowitz wrote the foreword to my previous one, The Flaw of Averages). But more importantly, Doug has contributed vital technology to the discipline of probability management. His cross platform pseudo random number generator (https://www.probabilitymanagement.org/hdr), is a critical layer in the open SIPmath 3.0 technology stack. SIPmath 3.0, which couples Doug's generator to Tom Keelin's Metalog Distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalog_distribution) conveys uncertainties as JSON data structures, which may be interpreted in virtually any computer environment to reproduce the same stream of random variates to about 14 decimal places of accuracy. This open standard has already been adopted by Frontline Systems, a leading provider of spreadsheet analytics. The first generation (single seed version) of this generator has been in use in the SIPmath tools from the nonprofit since 2016. When used in Excel, unlike the RAND formula, which cannot yield repeatable results, the current HDR generator provides a multiple seed pseudo random number generator with a formula that fits in a single cell. When used in conjunction with either the Data Table command or the new Dynamic Arrays, it enables extremely fast interactive Monte Carlo simulation in native Excel without macros or add-ins. Furthermore it does well on the respected Dieharder random number test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diehard_tests).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrSamSavage (talk • contribs) 05:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Undisclosed COI: –Ploni (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How is it undisclosed? He explicitly disclosed it. 2601:249:1180:AB30:1586:92B6:74D1:3C69 (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgot to sign in. So let me repeat.  COI cannot be undisclosed if he explicitly disclosed it. Hubbardaie (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right—I must have missed that. Thanks! –Ploni (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting for a clearer picture of consensus as to notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412  T 06:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of external notability hat has not been provided by the subject or his friends. Nwhyte (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No evidence? I'm curious, where do you look?  I've been cited over 2000 times by other books, articles, and researchers.  Do you even go to a public source like Google Scholar?  ResearchGate? Apparently, the shortcoming of the article is that it only cites mostly my own books.  But even a cursory attempt at an honest search would find many more.  Or for that matter, simply following up on the claims I made earlier in this discussion.  They are easily verifiable for anyone who simply looks.  Thanks for your input. Hubbardaie (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding colleagues of mine who commented, they are professionals familiar with the field. A person familiar with business measurement and decision analysis will be more likely to be familiar with my work, friend or not.
 * Note, WP:DISCUSSAFD also proposes not to participate in a nomination if "A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar." I only point this out because your bio and activity appear to be very, very sparse.  Do you have familiarity with this field of work? Hubbardaie (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This guy does appear to meet WP:GNG as an expert and published author in his field. I find the argument above by Dr. Savage to be persuasive. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment Keep. I'm not sure why editors are ignoring the fact that Google Scholar shows two highly cited books: The failure of risk management: Why it's broken and how to fix it (1384) & How to measure anything: Finding the value of intangibles in business (1346), as well as one (co-authored) reasonably well-cited book How to measure anything in cybersecurity risk (160). A handful of book reviews would be a bonus. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I notice that added six book reviews in August 2018 during the last AfD, but they seem to have been removed from the article shortly afterwards; I have restored them. Not checked them, but I think this would meet my understanding of WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR and the six book reviews, same as last time. The reviews were removed in a long string of edits by User:DrKDP, who appears to be editing to promote the subject and in the process has made our article worse and more likely to be deleted. DrKDP and the promotional SPAs on parade at this AfD should be encouraged to find something more constructive to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR per and the number of citations that Hubbard has in reliable sources. I've cleaned up the promotional content in the article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR, and the fact that he is notable enough in the field that I occasionally need to consult his Wikipedia page, which led me here today—a little existence proof, if you will. Dingolover6969 (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2022 (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.