Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David S. Alberts

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The result was Speedy Keep withdrawn by nominator. There's no reason to drag this out further. While I remain concerned about notability standards that allow articles where secondary sourcing doesn't exist or hasn't yet been located, this isn't a proper place to have that wider conversation. Further comments should be directed to WT:PROF or my talk. WP:NAC Gigs (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Alberts

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD was contested on this unsourced BLP. I can't find any third party coverage for this David S Alberts. There are plenty of hits for "David S. Alberts" +NATO, but they are all papers that he himself authored, not any third party coverage. Note that there are several other people with the same name. Gigs (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm surprised at this nom (as I was at the PROD). A quick Google Scholar search, which probably misses some things, finds these citations for his books:

Network centric warfare: 706 + 208 = 914 (different editions)

Power to the edge: 323 + 223 = 546 (different editions)

Understanding information age warfare: 276

THE FUTURE OF COMMAND AND CONTROL: 108

Command arrangements for peace operations: 89

Information age transformation: getting to a 21st century military: 81

The unintended consequences of information age technologies: 71

Planning: complex endeavors: 64

I think the citations for those first few books meet WP:PROF #1. His influence on US Military thinking (see this search) probably also meets #7. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. h-index is about 17, but this is completely swamped by 700 (or 900) citations for his major book. Indeed, the Network-centric warfare article seems to regard him as the key person in the field. StAnselm (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major researcher. DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So no one cares that there's no secondary source coverage, and that this article can never really be properly sourced as a result? Gigs (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, StAnselm: he is an extremely well-cited National security scholar, per WP:PROF. Any one of the sources available online could be used as reliable sources. Neither WP:GNG nor WP:BLP requires exclusive use of secondary sources; primary sources and personal sources can supplement those. There is also precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (journalist) for allowing BLP articles to be kept without perfect sourcing. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GNG does require "Sources independent of the subject". I'm definitely not one to insist on perfect sourcing, but I'm very concerned if we base notability on a standard that doesn't require even one independent secondary source. When I searched, I couldn't even find the university-published bio that has been added as a source. That is an improvement, but it should probably be treated as self-published and primary. I see it's flagged for rescue, if someone does find a secondary source, then I'll withdraw this. Let me know on my talk page if that happens and no one has voted delete yet. Gigs (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:PROF, citations are one way of establishing notability. The 2000 or so citations of Alberts' work are 2000 independent sources which together establish notability. Of course, those citations don't establish any facts about the subject, other than the fact that his books have been influential. As Bearian points out though, once notability has been established, university bios etc. are adequate sources for many facts (WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves). No one has !voted "delete" yet because this is not a borderline case: it's a clear "keep" -- although that's not to say that the article couldn't still use some help. -- Radagast3 (talk)

To me, it highlights just how incorrect and broken the application of WP:PROF has become. I don't fault any editor here for applying it this way, apparently this has become the common practice. Gigs (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find WP:Prof to be "incorrect and broken". I find it to be one of the most well-defined and consistent of the criteria for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Clear keep on basis of cites alone, also much else. The nominator states "I can't find any third party coverage". What an extraordinary statement: thousands of cites can be found just by clicking on a link! Xxanthippe (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Do any of the citations talk about Alberts in a biographical capacity? If not, then they aren't sources. Gigs (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are misunderstanding WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Neither of those require the sources to talk about the subject "in a biographical capacity." They merely require independent, reliable evidence of notability, which we certainly have here. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has probably changed on whether it's OK to have biographies of living people when no reliable biographical sources exist (per recent BLP discussions). I've been familiar with WP:PROF for quite a while. What I did not realize that it was being applied in a way to allow the creation of articles regardless of whether independent secondary source coverage exists, in contradiction of WP:N. Since no one has !voted delete, and several primary sources have been added to the article, I'm going to withdraw this AfD rather than drag it out, since there's not a snowball's chance of a delete closure at this point. Gigs (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per above. Ray^Talk 04:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per searches and sources noted above. COI problems can be dealt with in other ways, the subject appears prima facie notable from the above noted info, so the article should be kept. --Jayron32 05:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator placed the statement that follows on my talk page. Since it refers to the present AfD discussion, I put it here for the record. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC). "I've removed your uncivil comment from Alberts' AfD. Continuing to make such comments would be a bad idea. Gigs (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2010 (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.