Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Cook (computer scientist)

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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Cook (computer scientist)

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

Assistant Professor. Worked on the team that created Applescript. Seems to want to take credit for being the lead architect, but poking around seems to indicate that he was that he was one architect among several on the team. Has a few book mentions in Applescript related books, but most are in passing. Gigs (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Subject may have a large number of cites on Google Scholar 737,796, 571, 492, but I am not sure these are all his. Would the nominator like to comment? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- They appear to be his. I think you know my position on using citations as an argument for notability. Lacking biographical coverage of Cook in secondary sources, we don't have any reliable material with which to write a verifiable biography. Gigs (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is what I suspected. Would the nominator care to tell us what the subject's h index is, which he no doubt discovered in the course of WP:Before. h index is a useful indicator of citation performance, although in ambiguous cases a detailed analysis of the citations themselves has to be made. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

H-index has an only weak correlation to notability, and should not be considered in deletion discussions. Gigs (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - BLP with only primary source, apparently. May change opinion if there were reliable third party sources. Shadowjams (talk) 10:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear pass of WP:PROF. His body of academic work is self-sourcing and stand on their own. Ray^Talk 22:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All but one of the results on this Google scholar search appear to be his, and the one exception is far down the list. From that search, he has five papers with over 100 citations each, enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. Re the nominator's "assistant professor" comment: apparently, he is associate. He has enough seniority and impact that I would expect him to be a full professor (and UT Austin is a very good university especially in CS) so I imagine the reason he is only associate has to do with the large amount of time he spent in industry. Which is to say, I don't think we should hold his academic rank against him; we should look instead at his accomplishments. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I meant associate. Gigs (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of high citation record and acclaimed achievements in technology. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 5 December 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.