Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick P. Smith


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 17:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Frederick P. Smith

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Apparently non-notable professor. None of the awards are major, no chair or named professorship, does not appear to satisfy any of the WP:ACADEMIC criteria. Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 01:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the Fulbright award prestigious? I know it's recognized internationally. XF Lawtalk at me 06:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think it would be a good idea to have biographies for all 279,500 Fulbright Scholars, U.S. Fulbright Scholar Program = 800 a year, Visiting Fulbright Scholar Program = 800 a year, not immediately obvious what the "Fulbright research scholar award" referred to in the article is referring to .Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Article is mostly a copyvio of .John Z (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am unsure about this one in terms of notability. As an elected fellow of American Academy of Forensic Sciences, he might pass criterion 3 of WP:PROF. On the other hand, when I tried to do various requisite searches (googlebooks, googlescholar,googlenews, scopus), I did not find much. Also, as John Z noted, the current text of the article is almost entirely a copyvio of . So unless somebody can quickly and completely rewrite it, this qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD G12. Nsk92 (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked up the AAFS website and it appears, based on the rules specified there, that being a fellow of AAFS is not a sign of distinction comparable to other academies, but is mostly based on satisfying several formal service/publication requirements that do not appear to be particularly stringent, see: . So being a fellow of AAFS probably does not satisfy criterion 3 of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * note googling "Frederick P. Smith" for evidence of coverage in secondary sources turns up (non-WP:RS) biographical data for Frederick P. Smith, the Vermont State Senator, and Frederick P. Smith the Special Forces soldier in the first two pages of hits. There's NY Times coverage of a diverce [sic] case between a Frederick P. Smith & Josephine S. Smit...  Most mentions of Frederick P. Smith, MD seem to be of the Maryland Oncologist, although they are pretty parenthetical also, e.g. . Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * delete I see no evidence of extensive coverage of him as a subject in reliable secondary sources (fails WP:BIO), and no evidence that his work has had a notable effect on scholarly research (fails WP:PROF). Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Pete Hurd and my comments above. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Uncertain this is an applied field,and professional work in the subject can count as highly towards notability as academic publications (he does have one book, found in about 180 libraries & some journal articles). I am not sure how to judge the importance of the work. Has anyone made a proper search for court proceedings in which he might have figured? DGG (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: I just don't know but leaning towards a weak keep. This textbook with this publication, along with this lead me to believe he is important in his field. Smith, who is one of the nation's leading experts on hair, skin, and skin secretions analysis - a quote from this scholarly journal mailbox filler that reinforces my little gut that if I were in forensics, I'd be able to help establish his notability. XF Lawtalk at me 22:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't give too much weight to a publishers blurb. And, the 'scholarly journal' appears to be neither scholarly nor a journal but rather an University of Alabama magazine (the kind that universities give to alumni).--Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 23:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   —John Z (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2008 (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.