Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim May (chemical engineer)


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by Nominator‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Finally the creating editor has acknowledged their COI at WP:COIN and interested editors may now work unhindered to retrieve a useful article from the strange state it is in today. There is no purpose in prolonging this discussion.There are no other editors expressing the need to delete, and the keeps are conclusive in any case (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Jim May (chemical engineer)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article is filled with references of no consequence, WP:BOMBARD, and fails to demonstrate that the subject passes WP:BIO. He is assuredly WP:BLP1E for his centenrary medal, assuming them to be a scarce award, but the rest is fluff, flummery and a vanity piece. WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies.

To assist editors with this nomination I have prepared a source analysis table on this permalink to the best of my ability:

🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment the Centenary Medal was given to 15,841 people (plus every centenarian alive in the country at the time) so I don't think it would qualify as "scarce" or automatically confer notability. Melcous (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have modified the table based upon your comment. I do not necessarily see the need to modify the wording of the nomination. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. He meets criteria #3 of WP:NPROF, which also covers non-academic researchers. He was an Honorary Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy as described here ans well as a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering, whose election criteria are described here. See List of fellows of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering., if you believe that the references that support these are of "no consequence", you should not be evaluating articles in this area. Your evaluation of the sources in the table is not correct for these types of awards. Think election to the US National Academy of Sciences, which is an independent evaluation of a person's contirbutions and whose announcement is the appropriate source. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We differ. That is why we are having a discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * https://cheme.stanford.edu/academics-admissions/financial-aid/phd-financial-aid-overview/nationally-competitive-fellowships but these mostly concerns the US. I am not sure what the fellowships you mentioned mean in Australia, although if these fellowships mean something comparable to the list I linked above, I would say #3 is a reasonable argument in favor of keeping. I'm not putting in input either way and I'm going to defer it to someone more familiar with these fellowships. Graywalls (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep As this discussion was had in January, where the outcome was keep. Since then, more references, though debated, have been included. Carey3146 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep by arguments of Starry. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC).
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Graywalls (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. An entry in Who's Who in Australia is not insignificant, and StarryGrandma makes a compelling point that NRPOF#3 is met. -- Mvqr (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per argument by StarryGrandma. Shoerack (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The FTSE is a learned society and to be a member means being elected into the fellowship. That alone would like be enough for notability. Being president of the industries associations is more than than enough when combined with the fellowship. He is a senior figure in that industry.    scope_creep Talk  08:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on my current understanding of the fellowship. However, the article does need a lot of trimming and neutralization. Graywalls (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep based on substantial content from different web sites, particularly those that talk about awards. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: notability appears to be met. The creator and major editor of the article has finally disclosed that they do have a WP:COI, so the focus should now be on rewriting the article to meet WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Melcous (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WITHDRAW NOMINATION: Finally the creating editor has acknowledged their COI at WP:COIN and interested editors may now work unhindered to retrieve a useful article from the strange state it is in today. There is no purpose in prolonging this discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:56, 4 October 2023 (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.