Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hooper (marine biologist)


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

John Hooper (marine biologist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I struggled to find any notable coverage, just sa few articles with quotes by him. As currently presented, fails to meet notability requirements for a professor or academic Yaksar (let's chat) 02:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete--I have to agree. Not notable per WP:N. ~ Ciar ~   (Talk)  22:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep with an GS h index of 22 passes WP:Prof well. Did either of the two above look at GS? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR criterion 3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work … that has been the subject of … multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", namely Systema Porifera: A Guide to the Classification of Sponges edited by John N. A. Hooper & Rob W. M. van Soest (Kluwer Academic/Plenum: 2002) 2 volumes, 1802 pages ISBN 0-306-47260-0, which has been the subject of full-length favourable reviews in Nature and Science. --Qwfp (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So I do see that his book has a review in two science journals, but I can't see where it's shown that it is a "significant or well-known work."--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was the subject of full-length reviews in Nature and Science, two of the most prestigious science journals in the world, what better indication that it's 'significant' could there be?? --Qwfp (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm simply quoting you above. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work … that has been the subject of … multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." If multiple reviews were enough, there wouldn't be the need to clarify that it's significant or well-known. But regardless, no, I don't think that a science book being published in a science journal that publishes reviews of science books literally all the time is enough to make something significant. There's a reason why every book that has ever received a review from a major publication; they need to do a bit more than just get reviewed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you specify what they need to do? What evidence would satisfy you that it's a significant work? Qwfp (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. A book review doesn't have to say "this is the most important book ever and changes the face of everything." But it should indicate why this is an important book in the field, and this information should be able to be added to the article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nature: "an invaluable database of sponge biodiversity and a platform for the future development of sponge systematics. … they have done an excellent job, making Systema Porifera interesting and accessible to a wider scientific audience than pure sponge taxonomists. … enormous — but invaluable — book."
 * Science: "In a model of international scientific cooperation, John Hooper (…) and Rob Van Soest (…) have brought together 45 far-flung experts in the taxonomy of extant and extinct sponges to forge a coherent compendium … the two volumes will be an indispensable reference source for any taxonomist or ecologist who needs to put the extensive sponge literature of the past into modern context. More important, these volumes will form the basis (and provide important hypotheses) for future systematic studies, particularly those done using molecular data. As such, Systema Porifera is an essential addition to the reference collection of any university or research institution with zoological programs." --Qwfp (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And to be more specific and use a quote "The mere fact that an article or a book is reviewed in such a publication does not serve towards satisfying Criterion 1."--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's from the notes to WP:ACADEMIC concerning "review publications that review virtually all refereed publications in that discipline". It's irrelevant to WP:AUTHOR Criterion 3, and in any case neither Nature nor Science are such review publications. Qwfp (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please will the nominator explain why the subject does not pass WP:Prof on the basis of citations in citation databases? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Please point out in particular which specific highly cited academic work you are referring to (and if you're going through all that effort, may I recommend using what you find to actually improve the article rather than leave it as a one sentence page?)--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All the information needed is obtained from my first comment. Did the nominator read WP:Prof before making the nomination? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Please tell me which part of Yaksar (let's chat) 05:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You brought it up. Care to answer?--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Qwfp. Clearly meets the notability requirements at WP:Author.4meter4 (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment To everyone voting keep: I do just want to point out the fact that this article will most likely continually be PRODed and nominated for deletion after this passes. For all the assertions of notability, it has remained a one sentence stub with absolutely zero outside sources. If you all really do think this article should be in an encyclopedia, you should put as much effort into the article as you are into this discussion.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'd note that the one sentence is taken verbatim, grammatical error and all, from his webpage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've added some content, added 3 references, and done some clean up. Best.4meter4 (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see little point putting effort into editing an article that may be about to be deleted. It makes more sense to settle that first, then improve the article if it still exists. Qwfp (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That really does seem to go against the spirit of things, especially since the purpose of the encyclopedia is to have articles that are encyclopedic, not just articles that have topics that could be encyclopedic. Kudos to 4meter4 for making an actual effort.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: simple google search for John Hooper gives a result in the first 10 despite numerous other well known John Hoopers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richiez (talk • contribs)
 * Keep agree with Qwfp that the Science and Nature reviews are enough for author. I also found this interview with him where he is called "a world authority on sea sponges". SmartSE (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the citation data from Xxanthippe and the reviews in Science AND Nature. Either one of those would be enough, as far as I am concerned, as only a tiny proportion of scientific books published each year are reviewed in those journals (which only publish a few book reviews anyway). If a book is selected for review by both, there's no doubt left. --Crusio (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The reviews in Science and Nature verify Hooper's notability. Jenks24 (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment There seems to be a lot of "Keep" voting on the grounds of a book's notability, by virtue of being covered in Nature and Science. But this article is about the author. If this is to be kept on the grounds of the book being notable, shouldn't it be moved, if kept, to an article that is about the book instead? I haven't seen anything addressing whether or not the author is notable, and notability is not inherited upward or downward (so the author is not notable just because the book is, if little or no source material covers him). Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have some sympathy for this view, but it suggests that WP:AUTHOR criterion 3 needs alteration, which is probably better debated on its Talk page rather than here. Qwfp (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He is considered "a world authority on sea sponges" and wrote a well received book about them. Both of those things make him notable.   D r e a m Focus  06:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment It's not just the book: An h-index of 22 means that several works of this person have been highly-cited and made an impact on his field. That means WP:PROF is met. --Crusio (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, the article should actually be able to address how he made an impact on his field. Second of all, you're going to need to be more specific as to which works were highly cited and made an impact on the field.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have a tendency to put less weight of on the h-index--22 is pretty average for someone with a career spanning about 30 years, and WP:Prof recommends notable Academics should be above average (presumably because that would open the floodgates for all senior scientists with higher h-indices that are currently not included re notability). I think if there is coverage of the author in these reviews in Nature, Science or elsewhere, or if his book were the standard educational textbook in several universities, for example, that would be a better indicator for notability. Just my opinion.  ~ Ciar ~   (Talk)  21:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have done a search on WoS for "Hooper J AND sponge", which netted over 90 articles and an h-index of 24. While this would be modest for someone in, say, neuroscience, it's pretty impressive for someone whose main contributions are in systematics. I have added these data and his three most cited articles to the article. I also found a third book review, which I have also added. Looking at the number of "delete" and "keep" votes here, and despite the sunny weather here in Bordeaux, I get the definite feeling that it is snowing here. --Crusio (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Article has three inline citations now, and there are efforts to improve it. The discussion above convinces me that he is a notable expert on marine sponges, and a researcher who may well find medicinal uses for chemical compounds found in sponges. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Qwfp has found two notable scientific publications which speak highly of this person's book, so its notable.  D r e a m Focus  06:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your input is certainly appreciated, but I feel you should know that, ermm, no, that's not how it works at all.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually that is how it works, as others have already explained to you. See WP:AUTHOR.   D r e a m Focus  06:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. WoS query "Author=(hooper j*) Refined by: Institutions=(QUEENSLAND MUSEUM) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" shows h-index of 21, well above the conventional threshold of 10-15. This is sufficient according to WP:PROF #1. We make no contingency upon a person's age. It is unusual for junior academics to be notable, though there are cases. Conversely, most senior academics are not in fact notable under these guidelines, although most at top research universities will be. The policy is (purposely) somewhat steep in this category, precisely to keep ~ Ciar ~ 's metaphorical floodgates closed. This is an uncontroversial "keep" and will certainly close as such. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep per Qwfp. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nominator is advised to study WP policy and carry out WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2011 (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.