Talk:Simon M. Kirby

This article was nominated for deletion on 9/9/2007. 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.

Simon, how much of this did you write anyway? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.64.28 (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on[edit]

I don't think this is a candidate for speedy; maybe AfD. First, the University of Edinburgh is fairly important as universities go; second, he's what looks like an important professor there (if I'm understanding the titles right), in addition to the graduate school thing; thirdly, his work does get cited fairly often[1], and I first looked him up because I saw him mentioned in a mainstream publication. So all in all, he doesn't obviously fail WP:ACADEMIC and certainly isn't a speedy target. --Gwern (contribs) 15:51 9 September 2007 (GMT)

And the list of his publications is quite impressive. looks like he is very notable, but could you please expand the article (e.g. summarizing his findings) so that this could be seen from the text? As of now the article is not insightful at all, although it has great potential. Colchicum 21:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just what should be expected for a professor in a medium to large university, there's nothing particularly notable here. See for example: [2] or [3].

The list may not look especially impressive for wireless communications and electronics (let alone physics), but for computational linguistics it is.Colchicum 21:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that the bar for having an article in Wikipedia is too low for actors, sportsman or other "celebrities" and too high for scholars or scientists, but we can't add every single University professor out there. GhePeU 21:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy is not for an article where any good-faith notability is even claimed--see WP:CSD. If anyone does not think the notability sufficient, then the procedure according to WP:Deletion policy is to go to AfD. A speedy tag, once removed, should not be replaced. 21:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:ACADEMIC[edit]

1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.

Where are the independent sources?

2. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field.

Same here, where are the independent academics?

3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature.

The published academic works seems to be fairly standard for a scholar in his position.

4. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.

Same here, there's no source attesting the significance of his work.

5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources.

No mention of new concepts, theories or ideas.

6. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

No mention of awards, honors et similia.

I don't think that he passed WP:ACADEMIC. GhePeU 21:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]