Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank tamborello


 * 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. Consensus is that the article subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 14:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Frank tamborello

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article about a post-doctoral student who clearly does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Contested prod, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. Citation counts in Google scholar are far too low to pass WP:PROF and what else is there? A typical example of an article created too early in an academic's career, before they have had time to make an impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, A7. Hairhorn (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Try HCIBib. Specific bibliographies are sometimes more useful than Google Scholar for niche fields like Human-Computer Interaction. donkeycart  —Preceding undated comment added 04:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Wikipedia's standard for inclusion of article's about academics is WP:ACADEMIC. This lays out a number of criteria, any of which a person can pass in order t have an article about them on Wikipedia. The first of these is: " The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.". Please read the more detailed description of this criteria that discusses what is meant by an academic who has been "an author of highly cited academic work". I'm afraid that Tamborello doesn't come close, right now, to meting this criteria. Being co-author of six papers clearly does not meet the requirements. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that donkeycart has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a shred of evidence that this meets WP:PROF. The article history (with no less than three new users creating/removing speedy/PROD tags has a definite whiff of sockpuppetry. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Gentle chide. Uh, see Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet.  Also assume good faith.   FWIW, Sparthorse has only been here since October and I have been editing here even longer than you. Drjem3 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Donkeycart blocked as a sock, see Sockpuppet investigations/Dodge1967. Hairhorn (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Followed over from cognitive ergonomics. It does look as though the subject is a significant figure in that field. For one thing, a google check shows he is a principal in a company called "Cogscent". I recommend keeping this entry, if only because someone searching this company and this field might expect something about him. Admittedly, I am a wikipedia "inclusionist". But disk space is cheap these days. Drjem3 (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone can start their own company and call themselves a "principal". Disk space is cheap, but wiki is an encyclopedia, not directory of everything that exists (nor a webhost for essentially unsourced BLPs). Hairhorn (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:ACADEMIC says the criteria vary greatly by field. He seems to matter to his small community of cognitive architecture researchers. See for example the ACT-R website and the Computer-Human Interaction Lab website. These indicate that he's published multiple papers in multiple refereed conferences, which is fine for some fields. Also, "Don't rely just on Google Scholar, it is dicey." WP:ACADEMIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellstarr (talk • contribs) 19:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume you meant this link to the ACT-R website. This lists hundreds of researchers. Just being on a list of people who research a field is not the same as establishing you are notable in that field. Tamborello is a post-doc researcher who has started his own consultancy, which seems to consist of just him. There's no doubt he exists and is a researcher, but WP:ACADEMIC is very clear, caveats and all, that notability is a substantially higher bar than just being a researcher. The alumni list at Rice shows he was a student there, it does nothing to establish notability. I don't see any reading of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ACADEMIC that suggests that merely being a graduate student (even of Rice) makes you notable in a field. Sparthorse (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I personally know somone who made a nobel-prize worthy discovery (or at least contributed as much as the guys who won it} buckyballs, while he was a graduate student. So if you are going to go on that criteria, lots of people ewould get excluded.   And this guy is considerably farther along thna that. Maxdlink (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course a grad student can be notable. But notability comes from what they achieve while being a grad student. Just being a grad student isn't enough. The criteria are laid out quite clearly in WP:ACADEMIC. Tamborello doesn't meet any of the criteria. The student you mention most likely would meet one or more of the criteria and therefore would be notable. If Tamborello has had an achievement as significant as contributing to a Nobel prize discovery and that is documented in reliable sources he should have an article even if he was in high school at the time. No evidence has been presented so far to show he has had that kind of impact. Sparthorse (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The arguments in support of keeping this article have clearly missed the spirit of WP:ACADEMIC. Furthermore, I'm a grad student in cognitive psychology and so I am familiar with the ACT-R community and the conferences its members attend.  Let's go through the guidelines here:
 * 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
 * There's no real good way to do this without relying on imperfect searches like Google Scholar or MSN Academic Search. Neither one provides any cursory evidence that their impact is significant right now.  But let's look at the publications.  There appears to be one in Cognitive Systems Research and several conference proceedings.  Conference proceedings, based on their lowered standards for acceptance as I am aware, are not suitable publications for indicators of notability.  Furthermore, Cognitive Systems Research appears to very exclusively  cover cover cognitive architectures.  This doesn't especially support the idea that the subject's work has had a broad impact.  What we need are more publications that go beyond conference proceedings (which are considerably less stringent for inclusion than scholarly journals) and limited-scope journals.  The impact cannot be just on a sub-discipline of a sub-discipline of a field that consists of a few hundred individuals, and that's what it is right now.  JR Anderson, for instance, was able to publish his work on ACT-R and cognitive modeling all over the place (and continues to).  The claims that he is a "significant figure" are not well-supported.
 * 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
 * Nope.
 * 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE).
 * Don't think that this "Cogscent" organization qualifies as the above, nor is there evidence he was elected.
 * 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
 * Nope.
 * 5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
 * The subject was/is a post-doc, so this won't work.
 * 6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
 * See #3.
 * 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
 * Not as of yet, no.
 * 8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.
 * Nope.
 * 9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.
 * No, the subject's claim to notability seems restricted to academic pursuits.
 * That said, I wholly support the deletion of this article with no bias toward recreation if the academic becomes notable. I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 10:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Closer must disregard the sock/baloney keep !votes, because there is a consensus to delete which seems correct.  Does not meet WP:GNG, did not invent buckyballs.--Milowent • hasspoken  05:44, 24 December 2011 (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.