Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas T. Veblen


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thomas T. Veblen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Declined WP:A7 speedy deletion: the rationle was "an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject."

In my opinion this is clearly incorrect, and I have edited the article to disprove this.

I see no reason to doubt the assertions made in this article that Professor Veblen is distinguished in his field. Nevertheless, the article in its current form would appear not to pass the WP:ACADEMIC guideline for notability.

Wikipedia, wrong or right, is a creature of the internet: "[https://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=Thomas+T.+Veblen About 9,230 results (0.40 seconds)"

As always, please do prove me wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Google scholar uses initials not full first names. https://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?hl=en&q=tt+Veblen gives an entire page of articles of his with more than 100 citations. His scholar profile at https://scholar.google.co.nz/citations?user=q22yPdgAAAAJ&hl=en is even more impressive. Please don't nominate using google hits if you don't understand how google works. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ( Oh, come on, man— does anyone really understand how Google works?? I know I still do not!  Tricky business, that!)  KDS 4444  Talk
 * Actually, I have a PhD in Comp Sci, so to be honest I have a reasonable grasp of the basics. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof on citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC).
 * Speedy keep. As well as the clear pass of WP:PROF evident from his Google scholar profile, he also passes #3 as a Fellow of AAAS. To save us time and effort, I suggest that withdraw this nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. A Fellow of AAAS, plus an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand, plus the Sauer award -- more than enough to pass WP:Prof. Nsk92 (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree with your keep, Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand is not a suitable argument for a notability discussion. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Inclusion in a nation's top scientific academy, as this one is, has always been considered a pass of WP:PROF. He's an honorary fellow rather than the more normal kind of fellow because he's based in the US but it's still as big an honor. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we know what the process is for becoming an "honorary fellow" of an org like the RSNZ? Because while becoming a straightforward fellow of the AAAS involves a rather involved application process including letters from sponsors and evidence of a lengthy publication history, I suspect that becoming an "honorary" fellow in a different country's Royal Society is a somewhat less stringent process and may perhaps not (by itself) qualify an individual as notable.  In this instance, the fact that the subject WAS apparently elected a fellow of the AAAS is, by itself, evidence of notability (when I originally nominated this article for speedy deletion under CSD7 it did not include this information and my initial and admittedly cursory search for evidence of notability didn't turn it up).  The Sauer Award, while not quite the same thing as a named chair or distinguished professor appointment and not apparently a notable award in its own right (so far), seems to solidify the subject's notability since it is a national award.  I will take issue, however, with those who will assert a "speedy keep" on a claim of having "clearly passed" criterion PROF#C1— this criterion is deliberately vague, with no specific conditions or requirements, and a "speedy keep" on clearly having met it inspires more doubt than confidence in such a claim.  One can "clearly meet" PROF C#5, #6, or #8, but I do not think the others should ever be invoked as "clear".  "Apparent", yes; "clear", no.  Finally, David, a "speedy keep" vote is (as I understand it) intended to signal a desire to close the discussion, not to express an emphatic desire to retain an article.  The time for closure had probably not arrived when that vote was offered only two days into the discussion period and after only two other "keep" votes, yes?  Just a thought.  Thanks!   KDS 4444  Talk  06:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Most fellows of the RSNZ do not have articles, as per my work at Draft:List of fellows of the Royal Society of New Zealand. I understand less of the honorary fellowship awards. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If I had meant "emphatic desire to retain an article" I would have said "strong keep" rather than "speedy keep". By "speedy keep" I mean something closer to "I'm not going to bother indicating how emphatic I am because the chance of a deletion outcome is too low for there to be any reason to worry that it will go a different way; let's just close up shop and spend our time and energy on discussions where the outcome is less obvious". —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 13 November 2015 (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.