Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Tisdall


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Jim Tisdall

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I cannot find significant coverage for this individual.  • ɔ   ʃ   →  02:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC) -
 * I find significant coverage for this individual in music and in science. In music his collaborators are leading Grammy winners and nominees, for example Neil Dorfsman and David Bromberg and Nico of the Velvet Underground.  In science he made significant discoveries in the mathematics of music, working with the inventor of digital sound Max Mathews, at Bell Labs where the invention occurred; another great instrument inventor he collaborated with was Allan Gittler, whose instrument is just about to be re-released with a concurrent CD release of Tisdall and Gittler performing together with punk pioneer Billy Ficca.  He helped found the field of bioinformatics, published best-selling definitive books on the use of perl in bioinformatics, was the first person to use perl in biology, and for many years has taught the most famous course in bioinformatics at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory; he was a co-discoverer of important human disease genes and micro RNAs; was part of the (first completed) chromosome 22 project in the Human Genome Project. I am the creator of this page -- I'll work on adding more references to his work. Pardon my newbie status and lack of knowledge on wikipedia methods - I'm a new wikipedia contributor (now working on a page for another important jazz guitarist) User:Desalane 2 May 2010
 * Comment: Can you find reliable sources for those assertions? From what I can see he's performed mostly as a "guest or sideman", which is usually not enough for notability, and his albums are all self-published. As for his work on bioinformatics, we would need to see reliable third-party sources attesting to the importance of his work. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 18:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- --Darkwind (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think any notability is going to have to rest on either his book publishing or his music; as a research scholar I don't think he passes WP:PROF. At least, I tried a fairly wide search on Google scholar, filtering out names that were clearly not his ; two of the top hits are his two Perl books, with 62 and 28 citations each, two other hits with around 30 papers each are bioinformatics papers that might or might not be by him but I'm leaning towards not (the Telometric one has a mismatched affiliation and uses Java instead of Perl, and the other one is too noncomputational and too old). The next one that I think is by him (also by me) is a minor paper in computational complexity theory (neither of our specialties) with only 9 citations. So, as far as WP:PROF #1 goes, that's not enough. I added to the article a couple of published reviews of his Beginning Perl book, though, so that's at least a step towards WP:AUTHOR. And I have no strong opinion on the music; notability is not inherited, so just working with Nico is not enough, but maybe enough reliable sources can be turned up in that direction to demonstrate notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete I can not see any strong arguements for notability.  That said, it is very hard to assess, as the page has been loaded with peacock terms and name dropping, making it very difficult to figure out what relationships actually existed.  Its a long article with little concrete information. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2010 (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.