Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Bounds


 * 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 per DGG's rationale. Black Kite 22:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Bounds

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Michael Bounds' article states he is a college professor and was head of a department of an Australian university for a few years. That does not make someone notable. There are a lot of college professors out there. Furthermore there is only one link and no sourcing in the article to back up the claims. The article does not seem to establish notability. It is not verified. A good search didn't turn up a thing besides this article. He did seem to write a book on gentrification in Australia. However amazon.com seems to show it as his only published work. I should note most college professors do write and publish a book or two for the sole purposes of their own courses. That is what this book appears to be. I think the article should then be deleted. As for all the editors that have expressed concerns over my inexperience with AfDs, I hope I have herein satisfied your suggestions and concerns regarding proper listing. NewAtThis (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * note: this nomination is by a confirmed abusive sockpuppet who has nominated at least 21 articles for deletion in two days. See Requests for checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove - Wikidemo (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't find anything either.  He's written a number of papers as well, but at first glance, there's nothing that makes him stand out among other academics and meet our notability guidelines on professors. Celarnor Talk to me  11:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment this AfD was speedy closed and that closure was contested at DRV. I am restoring the AfD vecause it was not an appropriate non-admin closure.  See WP:NAC.  The non-admin closer's closing statement is pasted below, and refactored as a !vote.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 22:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No opinion on notability. However, this is a disruptive nomination by a confirmed prolific sockpuppet account whose MO is to propose articles for deletion as a way of disrupting Wikipedia.  Closing bad faith nominations like this one is entirely appropriate to prevent further harm to the project.  Taking up this nomination means the sockpuppet scores a point.  The subject is likely notable, although I have not formed a firm opinion on that one.  I have no objection to hearing this one if the sockpuppet does not participate.Now that the sockpuppet/nominator is blocked and the procedural hiccup over, I have nothing more to add.  Please carry on the good work! - Wikidemo (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy close. Bad faith nomination of an apparently notable article.  The troll who nominated this and several dozen other articles for deletion is back today under a new sockpuppet name for more bad faith deletion nominations.   Most are being speedily closed without regard to any delete votes.  We cannot allow the AfD process to be gamed for the point of trolling.  Bad faith nominations of arguably notable articles like this should be dismissed out of hand.  Anything else encourages this kind of trolling.  Wikidemo (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep isn't generally an option unless no one other than the nominator feels the page should be deleted, even in the case of banned users. The releant section of speedy keep guidelines is as follows (emphasis mine): The nominator is banned, so they are not supposed to edit. In that case, the nominated page is speedily kept while the nomination can be tagged with  and speedily deleted as a banned contribution. However, if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision).  Celarnor Talk to me  16:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That guideline doesn't apply here, and contradicts consensus, experience, and common sense as the way to deal with AfD trolls. As I said, the best thing to do and normal practice is a speedy close for these kinds of nominations.  Wikidemo (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- Canley (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I was referencing the article when I had an edit conflict with the restored AfD. In my opinion, Bounds appears to meet criteria 1 of WP:PROF, his book Urban Social Theory appears to be widely cited in academic journals (from my quick Google Scholar search), and the references I have added show he is repeatedly quoted in the media. --Canley (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did you find this information? As far as I can see, his book is of no particular value to the academic community, and his most popular paper is cited by 19 others.  That's hardly notable.  Celarnor Talk to me  11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, would indicate that this person is rather broadly cited in academic papers by a large number of people. This would indicate to me that he's a leader in his field. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC).
 * delete our sockpuppet did catch in his very wide net one or two articles that merited deletion. Bounds has published only one book, cited by very few people, and 3 articles, with citations in Web of Science of 1, 0 and 0. One book, cited by only 19 people, does not amount to anything much academically. DGG (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Canley above, seems to meet WP:PROF. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC).
 * What part of PROF does he meet? Celarnor Talk to me 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Criteria 1. You know, "per User:Canley above" =).  One could also argue that he meets WP:N due to appearing in reputable media like the Sydney Morning Herald, Radio National, The Age, etc Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC).
 * He didn't cite any sources to indicate that he is regarded as an expert and leader in his field, he just asserted it. I can assert that he's a werewolf, but it doesn't mean anything without evidence.  Also, the articles don't focus on anything he has done, they merely mention him giving opinions as part of a number of people within his field.  That doesn't really assert notability.  I've appeared in reputable media regarding IT issues; does that make me notable?  Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  11:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Canley is a werewolf? Eek!
 * Even if it did get 77 formal citations, that's hardly notable. Doing random searches on my professors this quarter yields a low of 56 for someone who started teaching this quarter and a high of 829 for the chair of my department, who isn't a leader in the field.  Regarding the '77', the field he is in is named the same as a book; this is much the same as saying "Isaac Newton" and "Calculus"; you're going to get A LOT MORE results than just citations.  The book itself is only formally cited by 8 papers, not 77.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  13:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete As noted above, his most cited work has only 19 citations.  That is not notable enough for inclusion.--FreeKresge (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems to meet notability guidelines: The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area (urban sociologist) by independent sources - ie cited by major Australian newspapers; has published a significant and well-known academic work; citing 77 times apparently per link provided by Lankiveil to Google scholar will do for "widely cited by other authors in the academic literature" - what number does it have to be otherwise?--Matilda talk 22:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * one book is normally considered enough to get a job in the first place in a good university, with a second required for tenure. People who do not meet that standard (or equivalent, in terms of papers) are not usually considered notable academics. Yes, one very important work would do it, but there would need to be specific reviews from major sources saying how particularly important it is. We've repeatedly held that being used as an interview source does not establish notability. I'm pretty flexible on the criteria for importance of academics, and he is at best extremely borderline. DGG (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, not all of those are citations for the book. I've gone through some of them, and more than a few of them simply mention him as being in the field, which is titled the same as the book.  This is one of the reasons numbers are a good place to start, but further scrutiny should be put on them to make sure they actually mean what you think they do.  And in terms of academic achievement, 77 is a bad number, especially for a professor.  I know undergraduates who have written papers that have garnered more citations by their peers than this man has as a professor.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. According to Google Scholar, the subject's highest cited article has 19 citations, and all his other publications have only a very few citations. The subject does not seem to meet WP:PROF at this time. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - It does not appear to meet the WP:BIO basic requirements - I can't find any independent published sources in which Bounds is the subject. He may be quoted in several sources, but nothing is actually about him.  BWH76 (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2008 (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.