Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart J. Ritchie


 * 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 no consensus. There is no consensus on the issue of the subject meeting WP:PROF. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Stuart J. Ritchie

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Identified as possibly not meeting WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC by Owling It Up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Criteria_for_known_people_having_a_page. Owling It Up proposed it for deletion but I think the correct route for this one is AFD. Tacyarg (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * What the hell is wrong with you? The subject is an academic whose (admittedly limited) body of work includes several heavily cited papers. His second full-length book, exposing/critiquing various modes of junk science, is about to be released in the US and the UK by trade publishers, with favorable advance word. Earlier today a new editor made their first order of business to attempt to have this bio deleted, and without any assistance made their way to PRODding the article with their second edit. It should be painfully obvious that it is, say, 100,000 times more likely that this editor is someone whose work or favored cause is speared in the book, and is feebly trying to discredit the author. No actual reason for deletion is presented, in any of the editor's three posts. And then a more experienced editor helps this vandal along. The mind boggles. Oh yes, speedy keep and immediately close. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. With one self-published self-help book with no reliably published reviews that I can find, and one "to be published" book, he falls far short of WP:AUTHOR. But his Google Scholar citations show 12 publications with over 100 citations each, including three as first author; I think that's enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with David Eppstein that a self-published book doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. On WP:PROF, this kind of citation rate is very common for that field - for example, even within his department, there are plenty with that kind of citation record (and greater). Here are some examples. It's worth noting that none of them have Wikipedia pages: Eric Taylor faculty page Eric Taylor Google Scholar Helen Fisher faculty page Helen Fisher Google Scholar Cathy Fernandes faculty page Cathy Fernandes Google Scholar Andrea Danese faculty page Andrea Danese Google Scholar Owling It Up (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Owling It Up is an SPA and probable bad hand sock. The account began editing Friday, and moved to PRODding this article with their second edit and posting a surprisingly sophisticated argument about citation rates with their fourth. It's clear the person behind the account has a grudge against the article subject, probably related to Ritchie's writing about junk science, but possibly even something so pedestrian as anger over receiving a lousy grade. Five of their first six edits relate to Ritchie, all relating to having his bio deleted -- not at all consistent with the behavior of a new, good faith editor. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No_personal_attacks: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans." Owling It Up (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Typical SPA sock behavior. Discussing sockpuppetry and probable COI editing is not a prohibited personal attack -- and for somebody who claimed to know nothing or next to nothing about WP policies 8 edits ago, you're not exactly acting like that, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do know how to read. Owling It Up (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This argument is an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, and as such is not a valid reason for this article to be deleted. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. How about the citation record being fairly typical? Owling It Up (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete Subject only became a Lecturer in 2018 - might be a case of WP:TOOSOON Freeranging intellect (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  17:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Early career academic. Far too early for notability. Very few academics below full professor level are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:C. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC).
 * Weak keep. Per David Eppstein. Note to closing admin: the account Owling It Up appears to have been created solely to discuss deleting this article (they have made 15 edits, all between 10 and 12 April 2020, of which 11 relate to deleting this article) so their vote should be disregarded. TSventon (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2020 (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.