Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William A. Tiller


 * 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. The consensus below is that the subject is notable as an academic. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

William A. Tiller

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No good sources; he doesn't seem to reach basic standards of notability. Sources used in the article are completely unsuitable. Notability is not inherited, and, so far as I can find, the only notable thing he did was appear as one of a dozen or so people in What the Bleep Do We Know?!, which doesn't justify a full article on him. Suggest redirecting to the film. 86.** IP (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge - Vote that we should merge with What the Bleep Do We Know!?. Normally membership of a science institution would imply notability, however I do not think he has had any lasting impact as a scientific researcher. Describing him as a "professor emeritus" is misleading since he does not seem to have any ongoing connection with any credible institution. Nothing in his publishing history has any significant sales or reach. He's just not a notable scientist or a notable author. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - listed as Professor Emeritus at Stanford University School of Engineering (link) and Fellow of the AAAS. --Chris Howard (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I stand corrected on this issue. If we could show that he has some ongoing connection with the department that might establish notability. I'm not sure if the continued listing is merely a courtesy or reflects actual continued participation in the research life of Stanford U. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability is not temporary; there is no need to show a current active connection with Stanford.  As a Fellow of the AAAS it appears he passes WP:ACADEMIC; and note the extensive results at GScholar. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you consider him notable based on his Stanford/AAAS credentials alone? --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * From a little searching, the AAAS elects approximately 500 fellows per year. - that's rather a big pool to be notable by default. 86.** IP (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I could re-phrase that. Does being an AAAS and co-authoring a hundred or so papers make you WP:N? I think it's a an indication that the subject might be notable. In this case there's an oddity: the stuff he's best known for took place after he had retired from Stanford and had very little to do with his former career as a professor of engineering. He was only selected to appear in the movie because of his unorthodox views in fundamental physics and his published works on esoteric matters. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to Guillaume2303 on the GScholar/Web of Science results.  The unorthodox side of work has been getting coverage since the early 1970s.   For example, look at the results from a Google search of the search string <"William Tiller" Stanford> at GNews and GBooks  Paywalls inhibit my ability to point you to particular examples but note that in 1972-1973, for example, he was being written about by the Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post (link to a reprinted Post story here), Paul Harvey, etc.  When Edgar Mitchell quit the space program to study psychic phenomena in 1972, Tiller was named as the leading academic involved with his plans. He's been well-known for this stuff for decades, and the fact that he was simultaneously a notable mainstream professor and a notable fringe figure has long been part of the story.  I respectfully suggest that this AfD is misdirected: instead, editors who are concerned about inaccurate coverage of fringe science could make valuable contributions in helping to improve this article so that readers will get a more complete and balanced view. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Don't know about all the fringe stuff, but his citation record (see the link given by Arxiloxos above) is enough for a pass of WP:PROF (top citation count over 400 hits, next ones 358, 176, etc). Article does need some work though. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not think he published an extrordianry number of papers given the length of his mainstream tenure. There's nothing remarkable about his career at SU, or have I missed something? --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're missing something. Given that GScholar is not very good indexing older stuff, I checked the Web of science. Being conservative (there were several "author sets" for "Tiller WA" and I only took the main one), I get a total of 6757 citations, top cited paper more than 1000, next two with >300, h-iindex of 37. This is way more than what we usual accept in AfD discussions of academics. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per points raised above, particularly AAAS Fellow, citations, news articles, etc. --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2012 (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.