 | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 September 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This page was proposed for deletion by Johnnysmitha (talk · contribs) on 8 September 2017. It was contested by Jonathan A Jones (talk · contribs) on 2-17-09-09 |
Notability
editThis article has been written mainly by a single editor. The editor uses primary sources for all points. Roger Reed is an Oxford academic with no particularly significant contributions beyond that expected from a research professor. A previous request to delete article by another editor was declined on the basis Roger Reed has won some (rather minor) awards and is an Oxford academic. Virtually all Oxbridge and Ivy League professors have won some awards, and his contributions do not stand out.
If anyone is curious, Roger Reed has an impact factor of 44 [1], not particularly high for an Oxford professor at end of his career. Permitting it to stand basically lowers the bar of notability significantly.
There are no secondary sources to show notability at all. Johnnysmitha (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ Google Scholar https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?user=IuIinzgAAAAJ&hl=en.
{{cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=(help)
Actually H=44 is well above the current consensus for meeting notability criterion 1 of WP:ACADEMICS, and as an FREng he also meets criterion 3. The article certainly needed a major trim of the cruft and puffery, which I have done, but no more than that. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Criteria 1: I disagree I see no wikipedia guidelines saying Criteria 1 is satisfied by H index of 44 (google scholar), which is not very uncommon and is quite average for a senior academic, particularly in an experimental field. I note the following guidelines (WP:ACADEMICS):
"Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied." "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." Also:
"The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus...Web of Knowledge provides a free index of highly cited researchers, which may be of some value. " "Generally, more experimental and applied subjects tend to have higher publication and citation rates than more theoretical ones."
The h index for Roger Reed is even lower in Web of Knowledge- a 38 [1], and Roger Reed is not listed in index of highly cited researchers.
Criteria 3 Noting: "For the purposes of Criterion 3, elected memberships in minor and non-notable societies are insufficient (most newly formed societies fall into that category)."
FREng is a new society, started in 1983, and does not hold the same weight or selectivity as FRS or similar fellowships that would warrant notability. 60 engineers are elected yearly, by design nearly all from the relatively small engineering professional population of the UK, and nearly all are obscure- it is difficult to find a fellow elected this year that has a wikipedia article[2]. Most professors at Oxbridge and other leading universities have been afforded fellowships in some academic societies. It should be noted perhaps, this article predates Roger Reed being awarded FREng.Johnnysmitha (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
References
I'm simply explaining where the current consensus lies, based on participation in a significant number of AFD discussions. As such I think that taking this article to AFD is unlikely to succeed, although you are of course entirely within your rights to do so. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)