This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This page was rejected originally. It has been cleaned up quite a bit. There is only neutral language, there are 70 citations all from neutral third parties that should at least satisfy the Wikipedia verifiability requirement. The only question that seems to remain is: is the subject notable. I would think authoring 26 books would be notable, but I know not all book authors warrant a Wiki page. Same issue with the 15 patents. One could argue the work on industry certifications is minor notability, but that is certainly debatable. The most notable thing to me seems to be the Distinguished Speaker of the ACM. That seems at least moderately notable.
The original admin indicated this was an 'autobiography' and even referenced Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I checked every IP address. From what I can find on Google the subject lives in North Texas. There is one of the IP addresses in North Texas, but most are not. None of the sources are from the subject, they are all (now over 70) independent sources. So I don't know the basis for the allegations regarding this article.
Some editor removed the section on being a reviewer saying it was meaningless. I think that depends on the journal. I would agree that some of the journals listed for the subject are indeed meaningless, but IEEE is not. That is the gold standard for computer science and engineering. And while I don't have direct experience as a reviewer for any journal, I suspect the IEEE does not pick their reviewers out of a hat. I did some looking into what makes an IEEE reviewer and I saw https://www.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-org/ieee/web/org/members/students/reviewer_guidelines_final.pdf and Wikipedia itself states "IEEE produces over 30% of the world's literature in the electrical and electronics engineering and computer science fields, publishing well over 100 peer-reviewed journals[18][19] and magazines; it also sponsors over 1800 conferences and events. " So I would argue that being a reviewer for IEEE is important. By itself it would not be noteworthy but it is a part of the subject's bio. I would also argue that while a subject must be noteworthy for a wikipedia article, not every detail of their biography must be noteworthy. Einstien's biography mentions he worked in as a patent clerk...being a patent clerk is not important or noteworthy, but it is part of his bio. John Forbes Nash's bio mentions his mother was a school teacher, not particularly noteworthy. Once a subject has been deemed noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia article, factual unbiased issues on their bio should be included, even if those particular items are not impressive, as they are in all Wikipedia bios.
There is a tag on the main page stating "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page" I think this is important and should be discussed. the main early contributor was DGG, then some minor edits by Katharineamy, I dream of horses , Edmund T, and Graeme Bartlett . And a smattering of unsigned IP addresses (about 8) including 51.252.11.231 (traces to Saudi), 178.80.96.182 (also Saudi), 12.27.99.194 (New Jersey), 216.54.76.164 (virginia), Which of these are being suspected of being connected to the subject? And what in the article is biased or inaccurate? I agree this should be discussed, and the article cleaned up if needed. BTW I am not signing my discussion either, I do everything on the internet, including Wikipedia anonymously.
Thank you for your discussion, but I disagree that the IEEE is not more prestigious, it is. Also you miss the point: I don't think this subject was considered notable for being a reviewer, it is just a part of his bio and thus appropriate. It would be like having personal details such as where he was born, where he lives, if he is married (oddly enough, none of that is in this article and I cannot find any references for such information). Those things don't make a subject notable, but they are part of a complete and accurate bio.
Thank you for that addition to the conversation DGG. I really don't know enough about reviewing to comment any more than I have. I just know IEEE is prestigious and it stands to reason that reviewing for them is a bit more than lesser journals. But that aside, I don't think there is any disagreement that this is an accurate part of the subjects bio? I really think there ought to be some basic personal information such as where the subject lives, but I don't have that information and have not found it searching with Google. I think you and I agree that basic bio is relevant, but I just don't have that information do add. I did find he did some volunteer work for a non profit, I put that in. I don't think volunteering for an NGO is particularly noteworthy, but I added it as part of my own belief that any bio on Wikipedia should be as complete as possible. Obviously you are correct that someone like Einstein, not only are even trivial items interesting, but it is easier to find sources. With a lesser known person (such as the subject of this article) as much detail is not only not needed, but probably not possible to find and verify. But I have a general belief that is a subject is noteworthy enough to get a Wikipedia article (even if they are on the lower side of noteworthy individuals) then the article should be as detailed and complete as well sourced citations will support.
Also DGG, since you seem to know a lot about Wikipedia and I believe you were the person who first got this article published, can you educate me a bit on something. I see the notice on the page stating this appears to be from a non neutral point of view. I don't see any such indications. None of the puffery like "leading scientist", "renowned", "accomplished", etc. In fact it reads a bit bland to me (and perhaps that is what an article should be, I don't know), just a recitation of basic facts. What am I missing?
DGG thank you for answering my questions. I have only been doing this a couple of months, and there is quite a bit I don't know. I appreciate you taking the time to explain these things to me.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This page was rejected originally. It has been cleaned up quite a bit. There is only neutral language, there are 70 citations all from neutral third parties that should at least satisfy the Wikipedia verifiability requirement. The only question that seems to remain is: is the subject notable. I would think authoring 26 books would be notable, but I know not all book authors warrant a Wiki page. Same issue with the 15 patents. One could argue the work on industry certifications is minor notability, but that is certainly debatable. The most notable thing to me seems to be the Distinguished Speaker of the ACM. That seems at least moderately notable.
The original admin indicated this was an 'autobiography' and even referenced Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I checked every IP address. From what I can find on Google the subject lives in North Texas. There is one of the IP addresses in North Texas, but most are not. None of the sources are from the subject, they are all (now over 70) independent sources. So I don't know the basis for the allegations regarding this article.
Some editor removed the section on being a reviewer saying it was meaningless. I think that depends on the journal. I would agree that some of the journals listed for the subject are indeed meaningless, but IEEE is not. That is the gold standard for computer science and engineering. And while I don't have direct experience as a reviewer for any journal, I suspect the IEEE does not pick their reviewers out of a hat. I did some looking into what makes an IEEE reviewer and I saw https://www.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-org/ieee/web/org/members/students/reviewer_guidelines_final.pdf and Wikipedia itself states "IEEE produces over 30% of the world's literature in the electrical and electronics engineering and computer science fields, publishing well over 100 peer-reviewed journals[18][19] and magazines; it also sponsors over 1800 conferences and events. " So I would argue that being a reviewer for IEEE is important. By itself it would not be noteworthy but it is a part of the subject's bio. I would also argue that while a subject must be noteworthy for a wikipedia article, not every detail of their biography must be noteworthy. Einstien's biography mentions he worked in as a patent clerk...being a patent clerk is not important or noteworthy, but it is part of his bio. John Forbes Nash's bio mentions his mother was a school teacher, not particularly noteworthy. Once a subject has been deemed noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia article, factual unbiased issues on their bio should be included, even if those particular items are not impressive, as they are in all Wikipedia bios.
There is a tag on the main page stating "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page" I think this is important and should be discussed. the main early contributor was DGG, then some minor edits by Katharineamy, I dream of horses , Edmund T, and Graeme Bartlett . And a smattering of unsigned IP addresses (about 8) including 51.252.11.231 (traces to Saudi), 178.80.96.182 (also Saudi), 12.27.99.194 (New Jersey), 216.54.76.164 (virginia), Which of these are being suspected of being connected to the subject? And what in the article is biased or inaccurate? I agree this should be discussed, and the article cleaned up if needed. BTW I am not signing my discussion either, I do everything on the internet, including Wikipedia anonymously.
Thank you for your discussion, but I disagree that the IEEE is not more prestigious, it is. Also you miss the point: I don't think this subject was considered notable for being a reviewer, it is just a part of his bio and thus appropriate. It would be like having personal details such as where he was born, where he lives, if he is married (oddly enough, none of that is in this article and I cannot find any references for such information). Those things don't make a subject notable, but they are part of a complete and accurate bio.
Thank you for that addition to the conversation DGG. I really don't know enough about reviewing to comment any more than I have. I just know IEEE is prestigious and it stands to reason that reviewing for them is a bit more than lesser journals. But that aside, I don't think there is any disagreement that this is an accurate part of the subjects bio? I really think there ought to be some basic personal information such as where the subject lives, but I don't have that information and have not found it searching with Google. I think you and I agree that basic bio is relevant, but I just don't have that information do add. I did find he did some volunteer work for a non profit, I put that in. I don't think volunteering for an NGO is particularly noteworthy, but I added it as part of my own belief that any bio on Wikipedia should be as complete as possible. Obviously you are correct that someone like Einstein, not only are even trivial items interesting, but it is easier to find sources. With a lesser known person (such as the subject of this article) as much detail is not only not needed, but probably not possible to find and verify. But I have a general belief that is a subject is noteworthy enough to get a Wikipedia article (even if they are on the lower side of noteworthy individuals) then the article should be as detailed and complete as well sourced citations will support.
Also DGG, since you seem to know a lot about Wikipedia and I believe you were the person who first got this article published, can you educate me a bit on something. I see the notice on the page stating this appears to be from a non neutral point of view. I don't see any such indications. None of the puffery like "leading scientist", "renowned", "accomplished", etc. In fact it reads a bit bland to me (and perhaps that is what an article should be, I don't know), just a recitation of basic facts. What am I missing?
DGG thank you for answering my questions. I have only been doing this a couple of months, and there is quite a bit I don't know. I appreciate you taking the time to explain these things to me.