Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Cook (doctor)


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 00:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ian Cook (doctor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )


 * Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Article creator is of the same name so there is a likely to be a conflict of interest. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Which of the criteria at WP:PROF does the topic supposedly fail? WP:PROF is an entire page of notability guidelines for academics. Please read WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Subject holds the Joanne and George Miller and Family Endowed Chair in Depression Research at the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences in the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA,undefined thus fulfilling criterion #5 of WP:PROF for qualifying for notability. --Lambiam 01:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 01:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 01:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Holds a named chair (although that is not mentioned in the article). Article needs a lot of work, sourcing is bad (Marquis' Who's Who is not directly a reliable source...), inappropriate in-text external links, outdated statements, etc, but AfD is not the place for that. For what it is worth: I don't care that originally this was an autobio. The article has been edited heavily by multiple persons since its creation and does not seem to contain any inappropriate puffery (if anything, the opposite: the article says he's an associate prof, although he seems to be a full prof by now). And even if it were full of puffery, that's a reason for cleanup, not deletion (unless it's so bad that we should speedy it as spam... :-). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very limited evidence for notability beyond local professional association membership. JFW &#124; T@lk  09:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What about holding a named chair? Is that not sufficient evidence? --Lambiam 00:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I find it difficult to believe this is a good faith nom, for I am sure the nom knows about WP:PROF. If he should disagree with it, trying to nominate for deletion articles that clearly meet it seems a foolish and way to show opposition that is harmful to the encyclopedia. Deliberately doing something like that comes, imo, close to vandalism. It only fails to meet that because the nom clearly sincerely believes that the present criterion is harmful to the encyclopedia, Suppose I sincerely believe that our criterion for baseball should be participation in two major league games, not one, a position I am willing in fact to defend. Were I to nom articles on that basis, how would the rest of you judge me?  DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:PROF AFAICS. WP:COI is a reason to be careful about the editing, but not one for deletion.
 * I'm also concerned about the good faith of this nom. It seems to be an overspill from Articles for deletion/Multi-touch gestures where the nom has taken against that article (for reasons that aren't seeing any support from others) and the nom has now started looking at the editor's other edits in a deeply personal way, not based on policy - just read the comments at the other AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not concerned about the nom's good faith, The nom lists a great many articles for AfD, regardless of who has worked on them, and I can't see that he has animus with respect to any particular editor, just a strong feeling about certain predicable types of articles. That many of his nominations are rejected does not indicate bad faith, just that he persists in trying to   establish stricter standards than the current consensus.  Perhaps he may be pressing some of this too hard, but he is trying in perfect good faith and complete honest and fully disclosed positions and motives to do what he thinks will improve Wikipedia, I honor people who do that, if they don't get disruptive about it. an occasional challenge does us all some good in forcing us to think about and verbalize  what we do routinely as a matter of course, perhaps without much thinking.   DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I did some rewriting, to add the endowed chair and to replace the "Who's Who" reference with UCLA references. There are still no independent references but he clearly meets WP:PROF. --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete unless independent references can be found for these many claims. I'm happy to switch to keep if at least one solid independent reference can be found and added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Updated based on new sources from David Eppstein. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see a problem with using web sites of major universities as sources for information such as their professors' job titles. But I added some more sources to the article, published in mainstream media and discussing his research in nontrivial levels of detail. I think by now it's clear that he passes WP:PROF, WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:V, satisfying all concerns previously raised in this AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 29 April 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.