Draft talk:Alan Dennis (scientist)

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]