Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Chesterman


 * 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.

On account that the article has been sufficiently corrected for opposing points of view and potential biases, nomination withdrawn for Simon Chesterman, however I will press that One Nation Under Surveillance gets deleted. elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 06:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Simon Chesterman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject of this page created this article. About himself. This is a procedural AFD, but the rule of thumb is that if you are notable enough, someone will create an article about you &mdash; conversely, if you have to create an article about yourself, it probably means you weren't that notable anyway. I propose to either remove the wikipuffery, or delete the article entirely until someone without a COI feels motivated enough to rewrite the article. I should add the man's resume may sound impressive, but the "Asian Journal of International Law" was created in 2007 in a board meeting probably chaired by the subject himself, and only published its first issue this year. elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 11:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The COI problem is worse than I thought -- One Nation Under Surveillance also needs to examined for deletion. elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 04:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not for spam.--Wahwahpedal (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rhodes scholars are usually notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that sweeping statement. Look at this list of Rhodes scholars which was cited in the article and you'll find that most of them fail WP:ACADEMIC. — Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 15:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The subject fails WP:ACADEMIC. He is clearly a very intelligent person, but so are 90% of professors in the Times Higher Education Top 100 Universities. In addition, the article cites mainly the subject's own works, and serves as a list of summaries of those works. This is not a neutral biography but a promotional piece. A search on Google brings up very few third-party sources which could help build a biography anyway (not that Google is a rock-solid measure of notability; it's at least a good indicator in this case). — Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 15:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:Prof with a GS h-index of 19. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC).
 * The H-index score is unfairly distorted because of his extensive tendency to cite himself (60% of the time, going by one book), in addition to his prolific authorship of books that do not require peer review before publication. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 05:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think, despite the COI, that he does pass WP:PROF (the journal editorship probably isn't good enough for #C8, and I don't think his awards pass the bar either, but only one criterion is needed). I just made a pass over the article cleaning out some of the worst of the puffery there. If the subject continues to edit in the same manner, user sanctions may be warranted, but I don't think we should let user misbehavior guide whether we keep or don't keep article content. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the concerns of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY override this though? If this is kept, we are sending a message that encourages individuals to start articles about themselves. I prefer if we delete the article without prejudice and simply wait for an independent editor to restart it, should one ever be interested. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 03:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But that's not how things work. Notable articles being started in a COI manner is not a valid reason for deletion. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We should generally strive to follow the guideline followed in WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, that is, we should strongly discourage autobiographies; either through very strict deletionism (just for matters of COI) or by ensuring that "autobiographical articles have been a source of dismay to their original authors". From WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY: If you create an autobiography you must have no promotional intent and must be willing to accept it being neutralized ... or even deleted if it comes to that. I believe we should be especially strict on the matter, especially to compensate for the fact this piece of promotional wikipuffery was allowed to exist for over one year. Of course Simon Chesterman might pass some GNG criteria, but to let his original article stay is hardly "strong discouagement" at all! Thus, we should wait delete and rewrite (though the best course of discretionary action would be wait for a random interested person to write about him). elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 03:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The guy is notable by Wikipedia standards, and all I see is a crusade by you against him because of your current rage against people who are pro-government or indicate pro-government tendencies on Singaporean politics articles. Your behaviour is alarming, especially considering there is an active RFC/U against you. You have to take a step back from the area totally. There is no such thing as "compensation" on Wikipedia. The article has been cleaned up and meets our standards. Keep. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is why I am suggesting deletion without prejudice. The article still has COI problems, and the article has only been minimally cleaned up -- the article still promotes him via WP:UNDUE. By the way, the guy writes about American politics; my only concern here is WP:COI. I do not object to his edits on Singaporean politicians, though I object to his participation.  elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 03:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We have a thing called "strong discouragement on autobiographies", outlined by policy. To keep this article with more or less Tempwikisc's original structure would be a most unsuitable reward for writing an autobiography. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 03:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, basically per David Eppstein. Also, GNews shows that he is frequently cited in the conventional newsmedia as an international law expert, so arguably passes WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The article may look neutral in its current state, but we cannot trust it because we have no idea if the original author cherrypicked reviews or favourable critics. This is why I am favouring cautionary deletion until someone neutral can start it from scratch. What concerns me is that Chesterman participates in very little academic dialogue -- while he publishes books prolifically, his books have very small citation numbers, and books are subject to less peer review. elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 03:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not true. He has an h-index of 19. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC).
 * From "Criticism" in h-index: "The h-index does not account for confounding factors such as gratuitous authorship, the so-called Matthew effect, and the favorable citation bias associated with review articles. Again, this is a problem for all other metrics using publications or citations." Furthermore, the first review I found contained not entirely glowing reviews, contrary to what Chesterman has written. This should be a concern. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 04:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Chesterman cites himself prolifically, arguably abusively, further distorting his score. Over 60% of the citations for One Nation Under Surveillance are by himself -- you get 6 independent citations for his book, and 9 self-citations out of 15 total. The original creator of the article appears to have intentionally ignored negative criticism when writing his autobiography (this is precisely why WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is strongly discouraged!) and also uses mainly primary sources -- his own articles -- as citations for his own statements. This cannot at all, be a good state of affairs. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 04:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, this does not seem to be true. His first hit on GS has 327 cites, on the first two pages there seem to be only a couple of self-cites. Do you have any COI on Singaporean matters as suggested here and here? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2011 (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.