Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Kendall


 * 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. No argument for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Graham Kendall

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Insufficient notability Philip Trueman (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Insufficient nomination rationale. Please follow the guidelines in User:Uncle G/On notability. Uncle G (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This article first caught my eye because it is a blatant autobiography, but I now propose it for deletion because it does not, IMHO, meet the professor test. The subject is associate editor of various journals but not editor-in-chief; has done academic work but nothing sufficently outstanding; etc. etc..  I freely admit that I was prompted to propose this for deletion when my  tag was removed, but the stated ground for deletion is as above. Philip Trueman (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Weak Keep, WorldCat indicates subject's works in numerous libraries (at first glance at least). This meets WP:PROF #1 criterion.Turqoise127 (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Any academic's name will show up in such a search - they publish to survive. The test is whether the works are highly cited (emphasis in original), or, alternatively, pioneering.  I don't think there's a quantity problem here - there's a quality problem. Philip Trueman (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - WP:PROF criterion #1 is made out ("significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"), through his work on international journals, conferences, chairing international symposiums, etcetera. He also meets WP:PROF criterion #3 ("Fellow of the Operational Research Society").  He also meets the general notability guidelines at WP:N.  He's an incredibly distinguished academic and the article should be kept. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I dispute your claim re #3. The example given in the "professor test" is of fellowship of the Royal Society; the Operational Research Society doesn't even have an article of its own, and a search for the two yields 51 hits (including the GK article itself) for the ORS against over 10,000 for the RS.  (On second thought, I now realise this comparison is naive, because the search for RS yields numerous false positives, but the conclusion still stands.) The relevant wording of the "professor test" is 'an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association'; the ORS is not highly selective and prestigious - it's just another ordinary academic society. The test is not met. Philip Trueman (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; in the absence of evidence to the contrary I'll accept the ORS is non-notable. Thanks for the catch!  He still meets PROF#1 and the general notability guidelines, though.  - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep (but rewrite from scratch). Everything looks very much like the average professor. He does what professors are supposed to do: writes papers and books, takes part in organising conferences, etc. Citation statistics in Google Scholar look ok but not particularly outstanding (I compared these to the statistics of some local computer science professors, and again he looks more like a typical non-notable professor, not like a particularly notable professor). Organising MISTA is not impressive – indeed, I seem to have tagged the MISTA article with notability a couple of months ago. Co-TPC-chairing IEEE-CEC 2007 is a bit more impressive – CEC is, e.g., a tier-A conference in the CORE ranking – but he was just one of 6 co-TPC-chairs. He just does not seem to stand out. That said, I didn't find a strong reason for deleting, either; in prior AfDs, people seem to think that even much lower citation rates satisfy WP:PROF #1. Anyway, a thorough rewrite from a neutral point of view is needed; the current page looks like an unencyclopedic autobio + CV-copy-paste. — Miym (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Top GS cites are 158, 85, 84, 82, 61....h index = 23. Clearly passes WP:Prof #1. Article is bloated and indulgent: needs to be pruned. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per citation analysis by Xxanthippe. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Article looks like a CV and needs to be rewritten (I left a msg. on the article’s creator’s talk page).--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Co-chairing two IEEE conferences doesn't really fit any WP:PROF criterion but it's enough to convince me that he's well-respected in a respectable research area. The citation numbers from Google scholar aren't amazingly amazing but they're not bad, hence the weakness of my keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 4 October 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.