Talk:Alan Dennis (scientist)

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 3 December 2024 by reviewer Theroadislong (talk · contribs).

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Notability of subject

As expressed in their comments on the last draft submission, Ldm1954 and Robert McClenon consider the subject to likely be a notable academic. I don't consider the subject to meet any of the criterion which are said to apply:

C1 (significant impact on field): He has written a good number of works but this does not by itself establish notability. It is clearly impractical for Wikipedia to undertake a detailed study of an academic's impact on the field, so it is for editors to demonstrate that there are sufficient indicators of impact on field. Ldm1954 notes the h-index is high, but this is not an accepted or effectual measure of impact on field. The guideline says it best:
Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others.
C5 (appointment showing level of achievement): the subject has a named chair, but this has to show comparable level of achievement to distinguished professor [i.e. "top tenured professor"] appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. Checking the faulty listings (surnames W–Z), of the 10 professor-graded academics, 6 have named chairs, and some have two or more. Having a named chair does not in itself confer notability. In this case, it is not proof of a comparable level of achievement to a top tenured professor.

This researcher does not stand out as as clearly more notable or accomplished than the average researcher in this field, and that being so, we should not create an article. arcticocean ■ 10:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a fresh counter-point, his faculty webpage describes his work being covered in independent mainstream news publications. Now, I would be surprised if a seasoned academic's work in such a topical field had not been mentioned by media once or twice, but if sources could be found, I suppose that might be a route to establishing notability. That is not what has been argued so far but could be explored. arcticocean ■ 10:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until the page is improved with verification this discussion is not that critical. Just to briefly clarify:

Raw h-factors should not be used, they have to be put into context. My statement "high citation field" was based on doing that by quickly checking the topics he has in the GA profile and comparing, as is standard in AfD of academics in science. Also, > 1K cites is a strong indicator, and he has 7 of those.
For #C3 FAIS might be automatic. It has ~5K member based upon its annual report. Proper verification from the source editors first, I am not going to hunt further.

Ldm1954 (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest respect, the discussion has to be for now, not the future. If the subject cannot attain notability, you are effectively requesting a load of additional referencing work to be done on a draft that will have to be rejected. (Also, you perhaps should not have referred to notability in your last draft rejection if you did not wish to discuss it.)

I'm understanding your position is that he is highly cited, not just that his h-index is high. I am less clear whether he is highly cited for a computer scientist. In isolation, the number of citations tells us very little. Do you have a view on whether he qualifies as C1a, highly cited?

Fellowship of AIS does not seem to qualify the subject for C3. Fellowship is chosen only from the paid membership of the AIS, not from the academic field generally (see their Council Policy Manual, s.5.3.1.3/p.20, point 7). Such a fellowship isn't the highly selective honour referred to in our guideline. arcticocean ■ 12:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For some recent and relevant AfD that I know about that are relevant to your question, please look at

The first is particularly relevant as two of the editors go into details of their evaluation, and also about 1K cites. It is also relevant to look at this discussion in WT:NPROF, one of many about how to judge citations. I judge that Alan's citations will pass C1a. The point about fellows only being for paid members is not relevant, that is standard. In fact the docu only says member, whereas it is 3 years for APS. For IEEE you need to have been a member for a while. Since the docu you provided says 10/year they are much more selective than APS -- and FAPS is considered an automatic pass of #C3.

BUT the above is only relevant if there is proof of FAIS which is currently lacking. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I shall review the recent discussions and consider your comments while waiting for input from any others. arcticocean ■ 13:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments left by AfC reviewers

Comment: He probably passes NPROF, I do not understand some of the comments of arcticocean. His h-factor is decent, although it is a high citation field. The statement that Indiana is not a major university is flat wrong - it is part of the Big10. Next, being elected as Fellow of a major society is generally considered good for #C3.
But...the sources are not present to verify the claims. Until they are present this article should be declined. If they continue to be absent in the next iteration I will agree with a permanent rejection with no option to revise. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am doubtful that this academic's notability has been established in terms of the guidelines at WP:PROF. While he has written a significant number of works, there is no evidence that it has had a 'significant impact' on his field within the computing science discipline (C1). His award in 2021 was conferred by AIS, a professional body, and does not qualify as an 'academic' award or honor; and in any event it is not 'highly prestigious'. It is also likely of regional rather than national or international interest (C2). While the subject holds a named chair, Indiana University is not in this context a 'major' institution of higher education and research (C5). He is not a chancellor (C6). Most importantly, the various claims made about the subject cannot be verified in independent, reliable sources because none appear to have been provided (WP:V). I give warning that I intend to decline this draft. arcticocean ■ 00:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources do not appear to be independent providing significant coverage. The subject almost certainly meets academic notability, but better sources are required. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance

I have accepted this with the view that it stands more than a 50% chance of surviving an WP:AFD though realising that better sourcing is required. Theroadislong (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]