Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Acquah


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Steve Acquah

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NACADEMICS. Several references are listed, though many are just links to papers he has co-authored. Other references don't even mention him. Only one reference is an interview with him in a non-notable publication. Awards are not notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is how I reached my assessment when putting together this article At first glance I would also agree with some of the comments when editing this topic, but as the person in question is not just known for academic work, I’m not so confident that an assessment can be solely based on this criteria. I based my decision on this: “However, academics, in the sense of the above definition, may also work outside academia (e.g., in industry, financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc.) and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements; conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not have to be notable academics to warrant an article.” WP:ACADEMIC It does seem that Steve works in more than one capacity as there are sources listing him as director of the GEOSET facility. http://www.thomasu.edu/Content/Default/101/4464/0/university-news/acquah-to-bring-geoset-to-next-tu-science-caf%E9.html
 * Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. From what the article says, he appears to be a soft-money researcher working for someone else rather than the head of his own research group, and the publication record bears that out — his citation counts are too low to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF and his top-cited papers all list him in a middle position among many other co-authors. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;Nothing showing up in google books either. The awards don't appear to have generated independent coverage.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, reads like an expanded CV. Kierzek (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per above - CV-type article that serves no purpose here other than to promote. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  03:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Snow delete. Most sources are self-pub. Man, this article ain't got a snowball's chance in Hell! --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - totally insignificant for any wikipedia criteria.PotassiBot (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * KeepThank you for your input on this article.

Are there any sources for ‘soft money researcher’ or hard money? I couldn’t find any. I’m not sure I’m qualified to decide on this in reference to a decision on this article, but a Director is not likely to be on soft money. Also from looking at other academic profiles as templates, I don’t see much of a difference. You have to talk about their work. This is part of every article. This is why they are academic. Once the requirements for notability have been established all you have left is their work. If there are any articles contrary to this assertion, it would be helpful to see. Also one of the articles news articles talked about interdisciplinary collaboration. This means that not everyone is likely to take the top spot on research papers. You need only look at the controversy about credit for the Higgs Boson. As for awards, I just listed what I found from a google search. They were not intended to infer notability about the awards, just to complete information about the person. Apologies if this was incorrect. I have deleted the awards section anyway.

I based ‘notability for academic’ on his chartered chemist status. “Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. “ “3.The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).” Maybe in writing more about the subject it would read like a CV but I see how that can be subjective as both a CV and Wiki article must retain a degree of neutrality. I was trying to avoid the content reading like a resume based on the material I found and the guidelines http://chr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.Maybe the subject matter is broader than just an academic profile. There are some experienced editors in this list that I’m sure can easily correct any deficiencies here to at least leave the article as stub for further improvement. Although in attempting to write this article this is what I was attempting to avoid. Any suggestions for further improvement? I’ve made some corrections. Looking forward to further constructive discussion. Groinstrad (talk) 5 September 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Groinstrad. I appreciate the work you did on the article.  I see this is your first article; for what it's worth, the writing and formatting was fine, you just ran into a problem with the notability of your subject.  I'll respond at greater length on your talk page.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2014 (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.