Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Edmonds


 * 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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Jeff Edmonds

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Autobiography. Previously deleted. Not my field of expertise but I am not seeing much on Google. Are the publications enough? JamesG5 (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. Sorry for it being an autobiography. I have found that most of my friends at U of Toronto have pages and most at York U do not. Maybe this is because they are better and maybe because no one has been proactive. I thought I would make some for my colleagues at York. I started with Peter Cribb. Then sorry, I leaped and did my own. Sure. Delete it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffAEdmonds (talk • contribs) 20:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete creating an article on oneself is a total violation of our terms of use and should result in immediate deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Strong Delete admitted WP:AUTOBIO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Barca (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, writing one's autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly frowned upon. But the content itself is rather dry and standard &mdash; if someone else had written it, we wouldn't regard it as promotionally toned. An h-index of 22 with 2,300+ citations is also a decent argument for WP:PROF. Sure, what counts as "highly cited" varies from field to field, but I can't recall an instance where anyone with an h-index above 20 actually failed WP:PROF in the final consensus. So, yes, a stern warning to the page's creator, and an admonition to read our Conflict of Interest guideline, but let's not be bitey about it, either. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There were also two three textbook reviews, both all paywalled . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and on his faculty website he has a copy of a news item in the Toronto Star. It doesn't appear to be available on the Star website any longer, but I was able to verify on LexisNexis that it's an accurate copy. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep As per XOR&#39;easter, I was thinking the same thing. The citation record should be paramount, as the autobiography (frowned upon but not banned) is neutral-toned. Curiocurio (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody without a conflict of interest can do a better job of writing something with some actual substance and citing some actual evidence of reliable (i.e. non-primary) sourcing to support it. University professors don't automatically get Wikipedia articles just because they have faculty profiles on the university's own website; they still need some form of reliable sourcing independent of their own employer. I'm willing to reconsider this if it sees the necessary improvement before this discussion closes, but absent that I favour the blow it up and start over approach. Bearcat (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PROF based on citations in Google scholar. The page is not promotional. The profile on the university website isn't what qualifies Edmonds for an article, it's the impact of his work (as measured by citations).Thsmi002 (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia article lives or dies on the quality or risibility of its sourcing. There is no notability claim that any person can ever make that is so "inherently" notable that it exempts the person from actually having to have any non-primary sourcing to support it. Bearcat (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. GS Citations rather marginal for a very highly cited field. Does not yet meet WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC).
 * Keep. Autobiographies aren't prohibited, seems to meet WP:PROF, and be otherwise notable. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep - seems to just about pass criteria 1 of the academic notability guidelines, per XorEaster and Thsmi002  OxonAlex    - talk  18:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NPROF, although acknowledging the weak sources for biographical information (note XOR&#39;easter's comment about an offline news article). H-index on the low side (especially for PhD in early 90s) but acceptable. Being an autobiography is not a valid criterion for deletion on its own. Polyamorph (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, technically one can make a plausible case here for passing WP:PROF based on citations. However, I am not seeing much else in the record to indicate satisfying WP:PROF (e.g. thinks like journal editorships, awards, being an elected fellow of a scholarly society, giving particularly prestigious lectures/lecture series, etc). Citability is pretty good, but for the kind of computer science and discrete math that the subject is doing, an h-index of 22 is not particularly special. Since notability under WP:PROF appears to be weak-ish, the fact that this is a WP:AUTO case pushes it firmly into the delete column for me. We can't just say that WP:AUTO does not prohibit autobiographies. If WP:AUTO means anything at substantive all, it is that in the absence of strong and clear-cut evidence of notability, autobiographies should be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing in AUTO prevents a perfectly good article already written to remain; AUTO was meant to be preventative, not punitive. It shouldn't have been done, but it was; and since it looks ok now it should remain. StonyBrook (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * AUTO isn't a reason for deletion in and of itself, no — but lacking any evidence of reliable sourcing to get the subject over WP:GNG is. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is notable and properly sourced - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2019 (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.