Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fellows of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 22:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Fellows of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )



No need for this massive coat rack full of unclear codes and NE-titles. WP:NOTDIRECTORY! The Banner talk 13:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Pdfpdf (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * a) The list is under construction - the "unclear codes" will eventually be clarified.
 * b) I have no idea what "NE-titles" means.
 * c) It is a list of eminent Australian Scientists and Engineers
 * d) No, it is NOT a directory.
 * e) EVERY person on that list is notable.
 * f) EVERY person on that list is worthy of a wikipedia article.
 * g) Do you consider the following lists to be "massive coat rack full of unclear codes and NE-titles. WP:NOTDIRECTORY!"?
 * List of Lord Mayors of London
 * List of Companions of the Order of Canada
 * List of Victoria Cross recipients (A–F)
 * List of Victoria Cross recipients (G–M)
 * List of Victoria Cross recipients (N–Z)
 * h) Your "reason" sounds a lot like WP:I just don't like it.
 * i) I'm in a different time-zone to you and am about to go to bed.
 * j) I'm glad your user page says you are not afraid of being wrong - it suggests you are prepared to have a reasonable discussion. However, the "!" after WP:NOTDIRECTORY causes me some concern ... Pdfpdf (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no problem to admit mistakes, but this nomination for deletion is no mistake at all. Firstly, it it absolutely useless to compare different articles with your articles, as all articles are judged on their own merits. Secondly, if all your Fellows were notable, they should all have blue links. Now I see al lot of red links (thus going nowhere at all), a lot of links to disambiguation pages and a lot of links going places you did not intend. Thirdly, you give no clue why these fellows are appointed and what they have achieved. And last: this process will take at least a week, so don't worry: it will still be there in the morning. The Banner talk 18:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * so don't worry: it will still be there in the morning. - Thank you! That was extremely kind of you, and I very much appreciate the kind thought. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete We don't need a list of every member of a private society. I'm not even sure the society itself is notable, and it's certainly not so important that it needs a page listing all of the members. The other lists indicated by pdfpdf is a pure red herring, as there's a fundamental difference: those lists can only grow. This list, on the other hand, is just the current membership list of an organization. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * a) It is not "a private society". (What is "a private society"?)
 * b) I'm not even sure the society itself is notable - Then perhaps you should do your homework before "throwing stones"?
 * c) it's certainly not so important that it needs a page listing all of the members. - On what basis do you make that sweeping generalisation?
 * d) The other lists ...  - Nonsense. You really need to do your homework before before making such obviously and easily demonstrated-to-be-false statements.
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - my head says the list can stay but my heart says delete - institutions can publish their membership lists elsewhere (e.g. their own website). However if the ATSE is a very prestigious academic institution (the article is currently self-sourced) with members elected on merit, then many of its members will meet the WP:PROF notability requirements. The list article could stay, providing all of the list members can be proven notable, per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Sionk (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for a sensible response.
 * Yes, the ATSE is a very prestigious academic institution. Yes, members are elected on merit and their achievements . Yes, the members do meet the WP:PROF notability requirements. Yes, all of the list members can be proven notable, per WP:LISTPEOPLE.
 * Also: Yes, I was sloppy in providing not-ATSE sources - I have replaced many of the sources with 3rd Party sources.
 * Thank you for your useful comments. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I've fallen into the 'delete' camp. There is no proof so far that ATSE is a notable institute with rigorous membership criteria. I'm swayed by Greglocock who is in the industry and recognises few of the names. If the ATSE is not proven notable yet, it's membership list isn't a suitable topic for Wikipedia. And no doubt they have it already published somewhere on their website. Sionk (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled by your latest comment: There is no proof ...  - Errrrrrr. Yes there is. See below. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Question. What is the criteria fellowship of the AATSE? For example, the Royal Society article clearly describes the criteria for fellowship, and we can determine from that that fellowship infers notability. If fellowship is sufficiently rarefied that it implies notability the list should stay, but if not it should be deleted. Pburka (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, given the criteria for membership described below. All fellows of the academy would seem to pass criterium 3 of WP:PROF: "The person is or has been an elected &hellip; Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor." No problem with red links in the list, as their inclusion in the list implies notability, and the pages can be created later. Pburka (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (Sorry for the delay - I eventually got there! Pdfpdf (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC))


 * Keep Anthony Staunton (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Three names on the membership list indicated to me that it was a notable group. Members included a former Deputy Prime Minister, a former State Premier and a serving State Governor.


 * Anthony: Notable names on the list do not mean that the list is notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED: "not every organization to which a notable person belongs &hellip; is itself notable." Pburka (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I was persuaded by the main article that it was a notable group. The fact that three high profile fellows represented the Commonwealth and two of the three largest Australian states consolidated my view that a list of members was worthwhile. Secondly, am I correct that the entire statement in support of this proposal was ‘No need for this massive coat rack full of unclear codes and NE-titles.’ This is a criticism about format which you fix and is never a reason on its own to delete. Anthony Staunton (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The real question is whether the AATSE needs to publish their membership list on Wikipedia. The question about which individuals on the list do or don't meet Wikpedia's notabilty criteria is secondary. Sionk (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is a corresponding category, Category:Fellows of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, but I think having both a category and a list is justified, because the list can also include academic affiliations and induction years. Fellows of learned societies are a pretty standard type of category or list to have here (see e.g. the corresponding U.S. List of members of the National Academy of Engineering) and this is the main national academy for its nation and disciplines, so it seems that inclusion in this academy is a significant honor. I don't think "whether AATSE needs to publish their membership list here" is a useful contribution to this debate: this is not where they publish their membership list, and I think this should obey standard Wikipedia rules for lists of names (meaning, even though probably all members of the academy are notable, we should only include bluelinked names). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I checked the surnames of fellows beginning with A and G. I recognised one name. As a politically aware newspaper reading professional engineer who works in Australia it seems likely that I would be aware of more than that. This is basically a private club. Membership is by invitation. Greglocock (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Significant institution. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC).


 * What institution are you referring to? It's the list of fellows that's up for discussion. Pburka (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC).


 * Information - Fellows
 * I'm afraid User:Greglocock's statements are quite misleading, and a few of his statements are just plain wrong.
 * http://www.atse.org.au/Documents/Publications/Media%20Releases/New%20Fellows%202012%20GENERAL%20medrel%20Nov12.pdf contains the list of new Fellows (not members) elected (not invited) in 2012 by the ATSE, and consists of 37 prominent, and in wikipedia terminology, "notable" people.
 * Whether User:Greglocock has heard of any of them, or not, is hardly relevant.
 * And if User:Greglocock is indeed "a politically aware newspaper reading professional engineer who works in Australia", then he would almost certainly recognise:
 * Michael Chaney; Sir Rod Eddington; Dr Marius Kloppers; and The Hon Karlene Maywald.
 * Requiring disambiguation are: Alan Joyce (executive); and David Knox (businessman), Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director, Santos Limited.
 * Without pages on wikipedia yet are: Andy Greig, Managing Director, Bechtel Australia and President, Bechtel Corporation, Mining and Metals Global Business Unit; and Hamish Tyrwhitt, Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director, Leighton Holdings.
 * And these are just some of the 37 Fellows elected last year. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I described my methodology. You have chosen a different one. Mine is more limited than yours, because I am not obsessive about the subject. Here's why it is a private club.
 * The Membership Committee is responsible for overseeing the nomination and evaluation process for appointing new Fellows.
 * Each year, it presents the Board with a list of recommended candidates – those who it believes have achieved excellence and impact in technological sciences and engineering.
 * Once the Board accepts the list, it’s put to the entire Fellowship for decision by Ballot. And the chosen candidates are inducted into the Academy at the ATSE Annual Oration Dinner held in November each year.
 * Greglocock (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What on earth do you think the privateness or not of this organization has to do with its notability? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This National Academy has the same structure as The Royal Society. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC).


 * Information - Fellowship
 * Prospective new Fellows are nominated, not invited.
 * "Each nomination for Fellow requires a Proposer, Seconder and Supporters (usually two or three) all of whom must be Fellows of the Academy and at least one of whom should have achieved recognition for outstanding achievements in a discipline relevant to that of the candidate."
 * "A Fellow may be the Proposer, Seconder or Supporter of not more than two candidates each year."
 * "As one of a number of related academies across the world, our Academy must respect international standards of membership and our defining emphasis on the application of scientific and engineering knowledge to practical purposes. Fellows from industry are particularly important in this regard. The Academy values its role in bringing together people with common interests to share fellowship. However, we must commit strongly to refreshing the membership so that it is the contemporary, high quality, active resource needed for the external work of the Academy, as set out in the Constitution’s Objects. In electing Fellows, the Academy looks not only for past achievement but also for potential to support our activities."
 * "Fellows at the time of their election must be Australian citizens or persons normally resident in Australia. Their achievements are not limited to Australia. The basis for election is Outstanding Individual Achievement in the Technological Sciences and Engineering linked with Value to the Academy. Outstanding individual achievement is measured on the basis of Impact of Achievements."
 * " ... is applicable to the full range of candidates covered by the Academy, including engineers, architects, inventors, leaders of industry, leaders in government and non-government institutions, academics, researchers, applied scientists, applied mathematicians, and those contributing to the public good."
 * "The fellowship process is based on nomination, not application. It is the Proposer’s responsibility to complete and submit the Nomination Form, drawing on the relevant content of a CV if one is available and input from the candidate where appropriate. The candidate’s CV is not to be submitted."
 * Etc. The "Information for proposers of candidates for Fellow" document covers 7 pages (with no pictures and very little white space). The nomination form covers 6 pages.
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Information - Please note that I have refactored the List of Fellows of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering to only include blue links and redlinks to people who are obviously notable. So far I have only done A and B - C to Z is a work in progress. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added Companions of the Order of Australia who are Fellows of ATSE. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Added blue Fellows of the Australian Academy of Science. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep A list of fellows of a significant learned society certainly have a place on Wikipedia. Ray  Talk 16:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am amazed at the arguments put forward for deletion. At Australian Academy of Science, it says "There are three other learned Academies in Australia, those of Humanities (Australian Academy of the Humanities), Social Science (Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia) and Technological Sciences and Engineering (Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering). The four Academies cooperate through the National Academies Forum, formed in 1995.". All these four academies are clearly highly notable, so the suggestions above that the Academy itself is not notable should be discounted. There is a similar list of Fellows for the Australian Academy of Science, but not for the other two Academies. However the article on the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia is rather brief and needs work and adding a list may be part of that work. All Fellows of all these Academies clearly meet our notability guidelines, so all could and should have wikipedia articles. I have noted for many years that there is still room for a lot of new articles by looking a lists of Fellows of notable Academies around the world, and I have worked slowly to create some of them. This list is important and should be retained. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if this private club is notable (not proven in my opinion) why do we need a list of its members? Greglocock (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Greg, your edit summary is offensive and warrants an apology. As far as I can see there are no SPAs here. Please see WP:AGF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see any spas either. WP:AGF (unless proven otherwise). Xxanthippe (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC).
 * I must admit, this is the first time I've seen Wikipedia admins called SPAs in a deletion discussion. I'm sure it must have happened before, but .... Ray  Talk 12:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Greg: this doesn't appear to be a 'private club' which anyone can join. Fellowship in an academic society is an honour which reflects achievement within the field the society represents. According to WP:PROF, a person is notable if "the person is or has been an elected &hellip; Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor." If we accept this guideline, all Fellows of the society are notable, so a list of these notable people is itself notable, per WP:NLIST. Pburka (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it is a private club which you are invited to join. Individual members may be notable, but a list of them is not.Greglocock (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm curious if you have the same opinion of the Royal Society? It's also a "club" which you are invited to join. Pburka (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Or the US National Academy of Sciences? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC).
 * I've heard of RS and NAS and seen them active in society and have seen members identifed by their membership. With AATSE, none of the above. Personally I don't think a partial list of RS or NAS members should be on wiki either, unless the selection criterion is defined by some RS. This is after all the same criterion we'd use with other lists. It seems to me that some very experienced wiki editors are wikilawyering their hardest to keep their little article in. Greglocock (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is the top-level academy for its nation (Australia) and its general discipline (engineering). In that sense it is exactly equivalent to the NAS. Also, your arguments are veering dangerously close to WP:IDONTKNOWIT. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you David Eppstein - I hadn't seen WP:IDONTKNOWIT before. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Greglocock: "I've heard of ... With AATSE, none of the above." - May I remind you that you are the one who also said that you had looked at A-G and only recognised one name? In that context, I'd have been surprised if you had said otherwise!
 * "It seems to me that some very experienced wiki editors are wikilawyering their hardest to keep their little article in." - I have been expecting you to do a Julia Gillard / Wayne Swan / [insert name of politician who never answers the question] for a while now. You do, of course, realise that when one has no valid argument, it is a standard tactic to attack the personality of others? Thanks to David Eppstein, I now know there's a WP page that no only descibes, in detail, how this and similar tactics can be employed, but it also explains why these tactics should not be employed. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Shrugs, you started playing fast and loose when you suggested that I was pretending to be someone I'm not. As an Australian engineer for 22 years it seems remarkably relevant that I have not heard of this so called top level academy. Greglocock (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I explained on your talk page, I did nothing of the sort. I suggested/implied that it was not credible that somebody who reads newspapers would only recognise one name. All of which, by the way, is not relevant to the topic of this discussion. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you deny writing quote "if User:Greglocock is indeed "a politically aware newspaper reading professional engineer who works in Australia" unquote? That snide shit doesn't set the right tone if you are trying to claim the moral high ground. Greglocock (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not relevant to the topic of this discussion. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The key issues of concern would seem to be that the organisation be notable and that conferring a fellowship is selective. It appears to meet both of these, so I'm satisified that this list is justified. -- Whpq (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Other list articles get deleted if they cannot identify a rationale for the inclusion of a partial list of members of that list. That rationale for the selection criterion needs to come from a reliable external source.
 * At best this list should be a category, not a list.
 * Greglocock (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no reason why this list has to be a partial list. Anyone who becomes a Fellow of this Academy is without doubt notable enough to have an article. I agree that this Academy is not of the same prestige as the Royal Society, but it is of the small class of Academy. The list of fellows of the Royal Society has been split into several lists. More work needs to be put into writing articles about Fellows of Academies such as this. We have plenty of editors who write about sports persons and film stars. We need more to write about scientists, scholars and engineers who are notable enough to be elected to Academies such as this. Greglocock, I have no idea why you as an engineer have not heard about this Academy. It certainly is not as well known as the Australian Academy of Science, but is intended to be a similar body and it operates in a similar way. As a scientist I have certainly known about both of them for a long time. Nevertheless whether you or I have heard of it is not an argument for deleting or keeping this list. That it is list of notable people who have been elected to a notable Academy is a reason to keep it. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  02:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To me, it looks more like another "old boys network" where friends arrange the entry of friends. The Banner talk 10:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How is "what it looks like to you" relevant to the topic of this discussion? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW: You never did explain what "NE-titles" means. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, not clear? NE = "Not Encyclopaedic" or in more common terms "Not Relevant". Titles are normally related to a study or a job, they are not awards (exception: honorary doctorates) The Banner talk 15:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, a significant institution, and including this list of members in the article on the institution itself would lead to too much clutter, in my opinion. In my view, the arguments made for the deletion of this list are pretty feeble and not grounded in policy.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC).
 * So, how do the editors select which members are in this partial list? That is what kills list articles, typically. The criterion for exclusion must be explicit, and not OR, and not, frankly, based on internal wiki logic. That's why a cat is better, if someone has an article already, stick them in the cat.Greglocock (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a list of all members. It's a list of fellows. Fellows are all notable per WP:PROF. Pburka (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For more on this, see also Fellow. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 3 March 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.