Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingsley Jones (Australian physicist and investor)


 * 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. Consensus has long held that the standard of notability for academics is higher than getting articles published in journals, including highly respected journals such as those in thePhysical Review. Since much of the work of a professor involves writing articles that get published, setting the standard lower would entail the inclusion of most if not all university professors. Quaxquax has expressed reservations about the current notability guideline setting the standard too high, but for the time being that is the standard we have, and the consensus here is consistent with that guideline. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Kingsley Jones (Australian physicist and investor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparent autobiography, subject doesn't appear to be pass the notability criterion (e.g. Notability (academics)).) Djr32 (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Subject has made original discoveries which are the subject of Wiki articles: Classical_Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation Perhaps this article lacks a correct emphasis on the reasons for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Labbit (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So an obscure Rugby player deserves an entry (Kingsley Jones (Welsh rugby union flanker)) but a published scientist does not? Is this an encyclopedia or high school?

Quaxquax (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC) — Quaxquax (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Director of a national team doesn't sound particularly obscure to me, for that matter. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. GS cites are 20, 15, 1, 11... Sorry, not enough for WP:Prof yet. Too early. Maybe later. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC).
 * A better source of GS cites is here. h-index of 11 is still not quite enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC).

WP:Prof is a rather astoundingly high threshold, especially in light of the fact that I do absolutely not care about obscure sports biographies when I research a published scientist. Somebody who gets to publish in top tier journals should be considered just as important as an athlete competing in a major league. That Wikipedia policies do not reflect this is astounding and very disappointing to me. Then again it's par for the course - after all most American universities pay sports coaches more than faculty. Just didn't expect this absurdity to be extended into the virtual realm on Wikipedia. Quaxquax (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC) So the fact that he is also a talking head on CNBC Asia is not enough to pass WP:GNG? Seems to me that somebody who starts out as a pretty high flying academic and then re-invented himself as an entrepreneur and investor, so that he gets his own CNBC slot down-under, should be somewhat noteworthy? C'mon, for better or worse, this dude could have stepped right out of a Ayn Rand novel. Quaxquax (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Quaxquax (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:PROF and as per Xxanthippe. insufficient level of citations. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The spa creator of the article would have been wise to have researched Wikipedia's standards before starting. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete. The citation record is not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:PROF, and I haven't seen anything to suggest he passes WP:GNG. StAnselm (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Someone who did a PhD and a postdoc or two, and published a few papers in (pretty reasonable) journals isn't a "high flying academic" or an Ayn Rand superman, there are tens of thousands of such people. I have no idea if he's a talking head on CNBC Asia, though nobody seems to have seen fit to mention it in the article up to now. Djr32 (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete does not pass WP:PROF and no sufficient evidence of other notability. a13ean (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Djr32 you get your literature confused, Superman is way to realistic a character to ever have been written by Ayn Rand. I originally included the CNBC links when I started the article, it was later edited by somebody else, and these references apparently removed. I already learned the hard way that my own threshold for notability does not meet up with Wikipedia policy. Which is too bad really as Wikipedia is a great resource if you want to orient yourself about various out of the mainstream research.  So please riddle me this: Why are the entries on Burkhard Heim  and Mendel Sachs ? I obviously appreciate them, just fail to see how they are much more notable? Anyhow, just to document that Kingsley is a talking head on CNBC here's a link [http=http://search.cnbc.com/main.do?target=all&categories=exclude&keywords=kingsley%20Jones].
 * Comment. Just realized that I committed another WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in my previous comment, but would still be interested to learn the nature of the difference in merits, would be instructive to know. Quaxquax (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You picked two kind of marginal cases, so it's not clear what insight about the threshold for notability is to be gained by assuming that they're different from this one. In the case of Sachs, I don't understand why his AfD was closed as keep (rather than no consensus) since there were a significant contingent of people on the AfD who thought it should be deleted. In the case of Heim, I don't think we've explicitly discussed his own notability, but there have been three contentious AfDs on Heim theory (see the talk page for links), so again I don't think there is a clear consensus that he's notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * David, thank you for elaborating on this. Makes me think I may want to mirror the entries on Sachs and Heim just in case.   As aptly demonstrated in this talk, I don't really understand the wikipedia AfD issues:  So I am wondering, for curiosity's sake: Does the number of hits that an article receives factor into the discussion?  Seems to me that traffic would be a fairly good criteria of how notable a subject is? Quaxquax (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you mean by number of hits. The hit count from a regular Google search? Usually not. But we definitely look at the citation counts from Google scholar searches. In a high-citation field like theoretical physics, multiple papers with multiple-hundred citations each would be good; the numbers in Jones' scholar profile aren't to that point yet, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Gscholar h-index of 11 is unremarkable for quantum physics. Ray  Talk 17:20, 2 February 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.