Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert S. Dixon


 * 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 redirect to Search for extraterrestrial intelligence. OK, consensus appears to be that the sources in the article are not sufficient to justify an article and that other sources also don't. Secondly, one or two merge targets have been proposed but there is apparently little material worth merging. By balance this is either a deleted or redirect case, but apparently there is no explicit objection to a redirect and suitable targets do exist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Robert S. Dixon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reason to believe that this individual wasn't involved in a notable SETI program at the level of acting director. However, per WP:NOTINHERITED we need more evidence that he himself is notable. The statement that he was "one of the first people to be shown the Wow! signal" is typical of this syndrome. He clearly wasn't the inventor of Kanade–Lucas–Tomasi feature tracker (KLT) either but is he a notable implementor according to our definition of notability? I just don't see it. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The number of citations to Dixon's work reported by Google Scholar is well below what would be expected by WP:PROF in this field. Is there any other notability criterion that he might meet? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep C-class article with multiple secondary sources ranging from 1977 to 2013, of which the "Wow! signal" is not the exclusive subject.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Those independent sources in the article are mostly passing mentions. And many are published by his team. So notability is not proven. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. I don't feel WP:ANYBIO is met, and while I haven't checked myself, WP:PROF doesn't appear to be met either. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks notable from the references in the article, and a number of others show up in a google search for his name. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Fails WP:PROF clearly does not meet WP:PROF and also fails WP:GNG lacks indepth references only  passing mentions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete While he may have done some academic work, for now he didn't met criteria for inclusion. And even WP:ACADEMIC acknowledges "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." This is the case here. For instance; ref 1 and 2 are both used to show he merely attended a university. Refs 3,4,5 and 6 all are about the SETI program not Dixon. Ref 1 is again called in writing section twice, ref 2 one time. The remaining sections upto writing section are clearly talking of SETI programs not biographical content of certain director. WP:ACADEMIC not met. The refs in the writing section showed he published some articles in newspapers (Glasgow Daily Time, The Beaver County Times and Journal; Sun Journal). He also contributed 3 chapters to two books in 1997 and 2011. This didn't meet any criterion of WP:AUTHOR. &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge / redirect to Search for extraterrestrial intelligence as that's what he's primarily known for. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Search for extraterrestrial intelligence. There's a lot of references but either the subject is only mentioned in passing or the reference is from his own team. He currently does not pass WP:ACADEMIC and I do not seem him passing anytime in the future at this late stage of his career. Ifnord (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Search for extraterrestrial intelligence and/or Wow! signal as appropriate. Dixon's main "notability" is inherited from other actually notable occurrences or he implemented someone else's work. I say merge in the interests of keeping good information and knowledge associated with the two suggested articles... but not enough for Dixon to maintain his own article. Operator873 CONNECT 21:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. In addition to not being notable, this article was created by an indef-blocked sock, and I see that many of the other articles created by this sock are tagged for suspicion of undisclosed paid editing.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2017 (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.