Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Huebner


 * 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. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan Huebner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP1E. Also, as it is the article is a horrid violation of WP:BLPREMOVE. Shii (tock) 12:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My complaint about the article's content has been resolved by another editor. Thanks! I still doubt his notability, though. Shii (tock) 13:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: the BLP issues have been resolved. As for notability, it's probably skirting the edges of WP:PROF, but I feel like the one paper he is known for was high-profile enough, in both the press and the academic literature, to warrant keeping the article. (The very fact that it attracted BLP violations, though unfortunate, also supports this). -Kieran (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I found a related source, but it looks to me that this information would benefit from a merge. Shii (tock) 07:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (talk to me)  @ 12:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (articulate)  @ 12:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment, the subject has received mention in multiple non-primary reliable sources, but IMHO what has really received significant coverage is the paper the subject wrote. Additionally, the subject if taken as an event (the publishing of the paper) it has received significant coverage well after its publication. My question regarding this AfD, has the subject of this AfD received significant coverage outside of the publication of the paper, A possible declining trend for worldwide innovation? Have other papers written by the subject of this AfD received significant coverage?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  17:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't think one paper with only 38 citations in Google scholar is enough to hang a case for WP:PROF on. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Uncertain Basically, I agree with DavidE. about his individual notability, but the question is whether people will come across this work enough to look for an article here--I'd be much more satisfied if we could merge or incorporate the content somewhere.  DGG ( talk ) 07:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I merged the content into the Innovation article. I think this page is safe to delete now. Shii (tock) 23:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete He does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, as noted by David Eppstein above; and as for GNG, his only notable paper was covered in a couple of mainstream sources at the time ((US News and World Report, New Scientist) but does not seem to have made much of an enduring mark. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure yet. I'm not seeing a real biography here. However, I am seeing that the paper he wrote was published in a peer reviewed publication, and has received some press. It probably received more press back in 2005 and maybe 2006 because it was discussed in U.S. News and World Report. Therefore, I think the best thing to do is to search general topic databases for related press articles, such as the databases found in a college or public library like Academic OneFile, Expanded Academic, and General OneFile. So, what I am saying is, I recommend an article based on the paper. I think that might be notable as compared to the author's biography. Biographical facts pertaining to the author could be mentioned in the article, if there are any more. Also, I think this is an interesting topic. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I put the same article in a different context that would probably survive notability. It is currently in my sandbox here, but can be moved to the mainspace at anytime. Just let me know what the consensus is. Or we can have the original author copy and post the sand box article.  Steve Quinn (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment to Steve Quinn: Your article fails to distinguish between *rate of change* of technology and *level* of technology; it treats them as the same thing. And I'd like to see a little wider variety of sources rather than just Huebner's work, a couple newspaper stories from immediately after it was published, and one followup research paper. Despite these flaws it is much better than the present article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - David Eppstein, thanks for the feedback. I will look into distinguishing "rate of change" of technology and "level" of technology. Also, I will search for a wider supply of sources according to your description. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete He does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, as noted by David Eppstein aboveKabirat (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in relaible independent independent sources. Transitory coverage in the popular press does little to establish notability. No evidence that the subject meets any of out notability requirements, particularly WP:PROF. No evdience of significant and lasting impact in the scholarly community. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete (change to delete) per Dominus Vobisdu. Also, this subject is lacking in sources that show notability per WP:PROF. The demonstrated coverage in the small amount of press that are used to source the article do not appear to substantially cover the subject. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2013 (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.