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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James John Miles

James John Miles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable academic. I can't (or maybe haven't) establish(ed) the notability of James John Miles within or without his field in academia. He has certainly published a number of works, but neither his work nor impact is astounding. Although he may indeed significant, it is with a heavy heart that I nominate the article concerning him for deletion. Qwerty Binary (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, is there a means by which to include more sources among those in the "Find sources" template? It seems that the sources are particularly useful among the humanities or the like and not as much for the sciences. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
James John Miles is a Full Professor and a head of department at a Russell Group University, in an internationally leading research group. He is widely published, and wikipedia page cites primary sources. If that's not notable enough for wikipedia then I don't know what is. There is plenty more irrelevant fluff in wikipedia, perhaps these articles should be deleted first. KEEP Duncan.Hull (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Having searched "Jim Miles" and upon further thought (even the fact that it's a Russell Group uni), I think I may have to reconsider. I think that keeping the page is valid; but, it needs further contributions, with some respectable frequency, and some — largely clean up — work. Don't you agree?
Please accept my apologies for my haste. I suppose we should either close this or have it carry on. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should the page be renamed "Jim Miles", the name by which he is known to students and staff at the University of Manchester, rather than James John Miles? --Qwerty Binary (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than one Jim Miles hence the disambiguation page Duncan.Hull (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually thinking using parentheses to differentiate him from all of the other Jim Mileses. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete without prejudice for recreation at a later date. There are several J J Miles' and they have to be distinguished. Search on Google scholar for "J J Miles" in appropriate topic area gives cites of 64, 41, 20, 20, 20, 18, 17,15,... with an h-index of 11. This is not enough to pass WP:Prof#C1 in a reasonably cited area; usually an h-index of 15 would be required. There does not seem to be a pass in other categories of WP:Prof. A little too early. I am prepared to change my vote if additional citations are found. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    • I think rather than trying to do the search yourself it's easier to go from his Google scholar profile, where he's collected his own papers and separated them from the ones by other similarly-named people. That gives an h-index of 13 rather than 11, with two papers with cite counts 122 and 83 that you missed. But it doesn't seem to me that the difference from what you report is large enough to make a difference. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this helpful advice. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Jim Miles is a head of a department of an apparently prestigious university; but, all these things don't really speak too much about his work itself. Can anyone shed light on what he has done and what is the impact of that work, without hyperbole and jargon? --Qwerty Binary (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A scientist should be judged not by his (papers) prizes or other honours bestowed upon him, but by the quality of the people he has helped to produce. Let these works speak for themselves. Sydney Brenner. I've added some non-publication stuff, e.g. grants awarded (including amounts), PhDs supervised (which is significant) in order to establish notability KEEP Duncan.Hull (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Full professor at a major research university is suggestive that he should pass WP:PROF, but I'm just not seeing the evidence that he does. The citation record is weaker than I would expect for someone with this level of seniority (despite at least one 100+-citation paper) and it looks like this is a field where author order matters and he is neither first nor last author on that paper. I tend to think that studying magnetic storage media as he does is a bit of a dying industry but that's neither here nor there; what I'm not seeing is significant impact by him in that industry. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the evidence that this is a field (materials engineering) where author order matters (not that I disagree with your assessment of the BLP)? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Because it's not alphabetical? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep -- I agree with Xxanthippe and David's overall assessment of the citation searches (which they're in a better position to interpret for CS/EE than I am), but I put more emphasis on the weight of his position (esp. given that it's a UK professorship) and institution plus the fact that some of his earliest first authored papers are less likely to rack up h-index citations because of their age. These aspects lead me to believe he has passed the WP:PROF bar, though just barely. As a further tie-breaker, the quality and non-overtly promotional nature of the article, which don't establish notability but help assure me that the encyclopedia is improved by its inclusion, push it over the keep line for me. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who is your remark addressed to? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Rochdale.Girl. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, This academic was a previous Vice-Dean at Manchester and is now Head of a School with 250 staff 1000 students and an annual turnover of 15M GBP, rated joint 4th (with Oxford) for research excellence in the UK, and 1st in England for Research Power. A School in which the recent Nobel Prize winners did their work to discover Graphene. This is obviously a KEEP.--Sharpic (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC) — Sharpic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and may have COI. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. The only policy guideline that admits automatic notability by virtue of position held is WP:Prof##C6 which states "6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." This applies to the chief executive officer of the institution (in this case the Vice-Chancellor). It has long been held on these pages that a Head of a Department does not qualify under this category. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • KEEP Grant funding in excess of £3 million is significant, added to substantial academic contributions, it seems like a no-brainer to me
  • Comment. The unsigned comment above is from the second member of the keep contingent to insult editors who disagree with them. Such behavior does little credit to the subject of the BLP or to the institution that he is affiliated with. It also misunderstands the nature of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not evaluate professional standing in the way that a university appointments or promotions committee does. It judges if the subject is notable by the virtue of having been noted by multiple independent reliable sources. If the subject's receipt of grant monies has been noted by an article primarily about him in a popular or professional journal then this would have contributed to notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Xxanthippe didn't mean to offend you, and apologies for forgetting to sign my comment above. It can be frustrating when an academic article that to meets the notability criteria gets nominated for deletion and yet wikipedia is FULL of pages of dubious notability. The original person who nominated this article for deletion (QweryBinary), even says "Please accept my apologies for my haste" (in deletion) Duncan.Hull (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite true that Wikipedia has plenty of pages of dubious notability, but WP:other stuff exists is no excuse for not keeping academic BLP pages to a uniformly high standard. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FJames_John_Miles
No tags for this post.