Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil De Luna




 * 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.

After extended time for discussion there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion. That editors are undertaking efforts to improve the page is promising. BD2412 T 01:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Phil De Luna

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a research scientist and non-winning candidate for political office. As always, scientists aren't "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show external validation of the significance of their work in sources that don't have a vested interest, whereas non-winning political candidates are virtually never notable for that per se, and get into Wikipedia only if they can show that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons, but this isn't showing what's required to pass either bar. This is depending far, far too heavily on primary sources directly affiliated with the subject (e.g. Twitter tweets, "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of companies or organizations he's directly affiliated with, pieces of his own bylined writing, etc.), with no evidence shown of the type of third-party sourcing it takes to establish notability as a scientist -- the few reliable sources present here are all either glancing namechecks of his existence as a provider of soundbite, or run of the mill coverage of his non-winning run for political office. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to show considerably better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting. My only comment is that I'd taken from the discussion that the article was in the process of being rewritten but it doesn't look like any substantial changes have been made over the past week. A reminder that this AFD discussion can be closed at any time when a closer judges a policy-based consensus exists. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Environment. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 04:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Given that this was already unsuccessfully nominated for deletion, what is the protocol on double jeopardy? The main claim to notability is the second sentence: "He was named a Forbes 30 under 30 in 2019 and was the youngest-ever director at the National Research Council of Canada (NRC)." He had +40 citations and an adjunct professorship at 30. None of that is a matter of self-publication. I have no comparisons, but this would seem a crack above the average academic. Greenbound (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * An article can be put up for deletion more than once, and this article hasn't had an AfD discussion before. A WP:PROD nomination, which I think you're referring to, is a different procedure without discussion involved and can be removed by removing the tag on the article. This can be followed by an AfD nomination. "After the proposed deletion is canceled, if you still believe that the page should be deleted, or that a discussion is necessary, it may be listed on Articles for deletion or files for discussion." Saucysalsa30 (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Greenbound (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. My understanding is that magazine and newspaper lists generally don't count as notable awards or confer notability. The most notable award appears to be the RSC class of 2021, but few of those members have Wikipedia articles and most that do are easy AfD candidates (Ex: ). RSC class membership doesn't appear to have the necessary degree for a BLP's encyclopedic notability, especially as a standalone piece. Much of the available sourcing I can find is primary - what De Luna wrote, what De Luna said, or mini-bios and profiles. On the surface, director at NRC appears notable because the wording in the BLP is ambiguous but on further inspection is not. The NRC is led at the top by the Canadian Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and within the organization by the President, listed as Mitch Davies and Iain Stewart (not to be confused with other Iain Stewarts with Wikipedia articles), which being President of the NRC evidently doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article for these individuals among their other career achievements. De Luna meanwhile is one of the directors within Energy, Engineering and Environment which itself is one piece of NRC. Also the COI editing and promotional tone doesn't help to demonstrate the neutrality or notability of the article. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We discuss here the notability. Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As we are discussing. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep He is a co-author of, 1060 quotations and many other papers in Science, Nature, Nature *. This is written "His articles are well-cited.[8]" but ignored. Summary - quoted 12781 times. Xx236 (talk) 11:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, he satisfies criterion 1 of WP:NPROF by having a copious array of Nature and Science papers, and he satisfies criterion 6 as a director of the National Research Council of Canada. His general-interest output also adds substantially to his relevance for Wikipedia. Elemimele (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly Xx236 (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * AFAICT he wasn't the director of the NRC, he was a program director -- the Materials for Clean Fuels Challenge Program. That is definitely not sufficient for C6. The article is full of this kind of misleading promotion and should probably be TNT'd. JoelleJay (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Brief bio of him here, appears not to be a paid piece. There is stuff in Forbes about him, but it's a paid contributor. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. There might be a weak WP:PROF case here on citations, but any page that starts with "Forbes 30 under 30" needs to be burned to the ground. The position of "youngest to head a research program at the National Research Council" is not what WP:PROF is about. Advertorial through and through, with no sense of what in a career might actually be noteworthy. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT says "this is the TNT tipping point argument: if the article's content is useless". Is it really? Even if 60% deserve to be removed, the text informs. 12 781 quotations, even after a radical review, is not 'might be a weak'. Xx236 (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Today '12798'. Xx236 (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Citations are not "quotations". And if only 40% of the text is worth keeping, then it's going to be easier to rewrite the article from scratch rather than try to winnow the wheat from the chaff. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Can find many reliable and independent source about him. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 17:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating Bearcat, the "reliable and independent" sourcing out there falls into the precise primary or unreliable categorizations described in the nom like this. There's still the question about establishing notability and the other issues brought up about the article. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: A couple of notes as this unfolded, given that some of the comments relate to my editing. I have never had any problem gutting and reworking this. I can do it myself, in fact, now that I know my way around better. It won't take long. I just read WP:NPROF: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." The subject's impact on electrolysis, hydrogen, and materials science is unquestionably top of field. The citation numbers really are enormous for his age. If we want to make it more about that and less about Forbes, sure. It's just that when I drafted it I thought I was doing the right thing leading with such. Also, people are pointing to the crufty stuff, but the Star and Globe are perfectly legitimate for establishing notability and he's cited more than once in both. Greenbound (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I respect the drive to keep the article alive, but please see WP:OVERCOME. I'm assuming the "top of field" comment is not original research, but where is it said in any detail, nevermind significant, in-depth coverage, that the subject's impact on all those areas is top of field? He has a citation count, but what is the top of field, seemingly historically-defining impact? I don't think people are pointing to the crufty stuff. The Globe and Mail article with its short 'bio' and to a large extent is quotes and the Toronto Star article barely mentioning he lost an election do not establish notability and are among the broad sourcing that the nomination pointed out as a core issue. Issues with the misleading and promotional nature of the article have been demonstrated by multiple editors. As an uncontroversial example, we can look at Nikola Tesla and the hundreds of books and studies about every part of his life and work published in overwhelming detail in many languages, and Tesla didn't benefit from the internet era mass media and COI editing to demonstrate notability either.
 * I think the question to think about is, how does an article highlighting De Luna and 49 other subjectively "notable" people (who from those I checked, none have Wikipedia articles) including company CEOs and an article mentioning a lost election establish notability per Wikipedia's standards? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Elemimele has already said this well. Criterion 1 doesn't ask for historically-defining. It asks for a significant impact. He has 25 publications in Nature and Science and 13,000 citations. There's not an academic alive that wouldn't consider this a stupendous output. There are dozens of press mentions fulfilling the last portion of the criterion.
 * Here's my take. Phil De Luna is obviously a pretty self-promotional guy. Self-promotion is annoying. Hence people find this article annoying and want to see it scrubbed. Which, as I say, is partly my fault. I am not being glib -- it's a perfectly understandable response. But on science career alone the notability is clear. Tesla sets a pretty high bar. Visit this category and compare. De Luna is perfectly in keeping with other Canadian materials scientists that have articles. And it would surely be a disservice to Wiki to argue all of those should be deleted. Greenbound (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In its current state, criteria 1 is not met because of 2 problems: 1. The big one is the article is missing the "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" part. We need in-depth independent reliable sources regarding criteria 1, which have not yet been provided and right now this is original research. Criteria 1 is not currently met. 2. Policy is vague on this, but he is not a primary author in many of the papers. For example, this paper has 25(!) listed authors, but only 3 with *'s are attributed equally as the primary author (not including De Luna) and 2 are faculty/PIs and PI(s) are always at the end. Author names are usually ordered by contribution, and on this one, De Luna is almost at the end. "Gift" authorship is an issue in academia and from looking through the published papers, De Luna's citation count has benefited substantially from this.
 * Do you have reliable, secondary, detailed sourcing that can help establish that this criteria is met?
 * Since we currently don't have independent reliable sourcing, I'll note the Google's 12832 count is not necessarily accurate. For the paper I linked, Google says 1700 but the paper on Science says 1206. Counting together papers in which De Luna is the primary author or listed as primary "equal contributor", De Luna has 4261 citations, a far cry from the 13000 claimed in this discussion.
 * Pinging @XOR'easter for their input on the claim that the Wikipedia article meets criteria 1, given their expertise in scientific academia and this Wikipedia policy.
 * The second paragraph in your comment includes original research about De Luna's personality and WP:IDHT. No one has characterized this article as annoying. The lack of reliable sourcing and notability, and the advertorializing and and other issues have all been demonstrated. Other articles existing is not a legitimate defense for this one to exist. Please see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?. Some of those articles in that category are good AfD candidates too. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Saucysalsa. I'd rather not continue talking to you. I will rewrite the article and present per other's suggestions. Greenbound (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Good luck! Glad we're aligned. As it currently stands, none of the notability criteria is met. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * this is an interesting point that needs clarification at WP:NPROF. The issue is that the very existence of Nature and Science papers of itself constitutes independent reliable sourcing that he has been influential because these journals always consult multiple reviewers independent of the author before they accept anything for publication, and these journals are the most influential available. I know it can be argued that I'm synthesising, but I'm not synthesising in a Wikipedia article. I'm just pointing out that if we need a measure of how influential a scientist is, and a measure that they can't influence by self-promotion, only by being influential, the sheer number of Nature and Science papers they've authored is genuinely accurate. Elemimele (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct. His academic CV in itself meets criterion 1. We don't need CNN to subsequently tell us "this is a significant scientific output." But insofar as everyone seems to want that, consult the press listings on his site. There are +70 total, numerous of which any Canadian would recognize as a credible third party (Star, Globe, Global, CBC, TVO etc.) Notability is not the issue here; the self-promotional language is. Greenbound (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And you are also correct that this should be taken up at the guideline. "He was a Clarivate Highly Cited Researcher, being among the top 1% of scientists cited in his field worldwide." If I go and add that to the first or second sentence someone will tell me it's self-promotional. And yet it seems to be the kind of explicit proof that's expected here. It's a little bit damned if you do, damned if you don't. Anyhow, I have taken it to the sandbox. Greenbound (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the very existence of Nature and Science papers of itself constitutes independent reliable sourcing that he has been influential because these journals always consult multiple reviewers independent of the author before they accept anything for publication, and these journals are the most influential available. No, it doesn't. Mere publication is not the same as influence, regardless of the journal. It might be less likely that a Nature or Science article will sink into obscurity, but it's still possible. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "I know it can be argued that I'm synthesising, but I'm not synthesising in a Wikipedia article" If we need (what I assume is well-intentioned, and the policy has ambiguity) synthesis/original research in how we interpret notability guidelines to this extent, then there likely isn't a case to be made for WP:NPROF. Minimally, the papers his name is on aren't independent considering he contributed to them.
 * As an aside, I agree about "gift authorship" needing clarification on WP:NPROF. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel that this AfD highlights some of the difficulties in interpreting WP:NPROF, so I've attempted to prompt a review of the criteria at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics). I hope this is okay, and invite all. Elemimele (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't think this AfD speaks much to any ambiguity or difficulty with WP:PROF at all. The question is what to do with a page where there might be a notability argument on one ground or another when the text of the page is an advertorial, unencyclopedic, LinkedIn-fest. That can happen for academics, authors, restauranteurs, whoever. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. Although I !voted keep, I agree completely that the article looks a bit promotional and like a CV. I'm in favour of pruning rather than TNT deletion (AfD not clean-up, but my personal bar for TNT deletions instead of clean-up is probably higher than average). I'll leave the question at NPROF open as a general matter in case it throws up anything useful. Elemimele (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The good news is that we're not dealing with some 5,000-word monster that will take weeks of improvement. Greenbound (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Unless some serious additions are made, a delete is in order. — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 20:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom, content certainly seems like a COI or pay-for-play here. Advertisorial. Sourcing barely sufficient if at all. Delete. — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 20:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: went ahead and replaced with slimmed down version. Crufty sources should be gone. Greenbound (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: First, a thanks to GreenBound for making the effort to revise the article. Following the changes, I made a short analysis on sources on the Talk page. From these, I think a few can help towards establishing notability in line with WP:NBASIC and WP:NPROF, namely but which isn't entirely independent of the subject, and to some extent the Clarivate page although it doesn't have anything specific to say about De Luna, and the two pages from his university. It may just be me, but it still reads like a resume-like or promotional piece, mainly because of the nature of the sourcing. Regarding NPROF criteria, there's a related extended discussion going on here. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2022 (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.