Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Noble (computer scientist)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=James Noble (computer scientist)}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=James Noble (computer scientist)}})

Self-published article; notability not established Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: The award might be notable, but there is nothing to be found in Gbooks, scholar or Jstor. Gnews also has nothing. The article is unsourced, so could be a hoax? There is nothing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::@User:Oaktree b can you have a look at his https://sites.google.com/aito.org/home/aito-dahl-nygaard/2016-winners GS profile] for re-evaluation, he seems clearly notable in my book. --hroest 01:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You'll need a ton more sourcing than that, we still need sources that talk about the person Oaktree b (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@User:Oaktree b no we dont, this is a WP:NPROF evaluation. --hroest 19:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::One source showing he won a prize still isn't enough sourcing, it indicates a pass at notability. I'm trying to avoid permastub articles. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::"An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient. Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Major awards must be confirmed, claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings, and so on.

::::::Once the passage of one or more notability criteria has been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details." Sources, plural, indicating at least two. I still don't see those. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I agree, we need independent sources for his h-index and the award. These are provided by Google Scholar, Scopus and the organization that provides the award (independent from the subject). This is exactly how the guidelines are supposed to work. To clarify: the subject cannot just upload a CV to his institution and claim to be a highly respected and highly cited professor. However, if independent sources confirm that he got an award and is highly cited, then this criteria is fulfilled. --hroest 01:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• keep this is clearly not a hoax which some WP:BEFORE shows. The [https://sites.google.com/aito.org/home/aito-dahl-nygaard/2016-winners GS profile] shows an respectable h index of 57 which is way above our usual threshold and more than 20 papers with 100+ citations, thus satisfying WP:NPROF#1. Plus he also won the [https://sites.google.com/aito.org/home/aito-dahl-nygaard/2016-winners Dahl-Nygaard Prize] contributing to WP:NPROF#2 - overall I see a profile that is substantially stronger than most other AfD candidates that end up being kept and I cannot follow the arguments for deletion here. --hroest 01:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Your GS profile link goes elsewhere; I think you want [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=SSUL-D8AAAAJ this one]. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I am surpsised by the discussion about deletion.
• ::James Noble is an influential, widely known and recognized member of the Programming Languages research community. Here some further indications, on top of the Dahl-Nygaard Prize:
• ::He hasreceived the "2008 OOPLSA Test of Time Award" for his 1998 paper. see here: https://sigplan.org/Awards/OOPSLA/. OOPSLA is a most prestigious conference run under ACM Sigplan.
• ::And he has been PC Chair for the ECOOP 2012 conference. Its proceedings are published by Springer, cf https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-31057-7.
• ::---
• ::Full disclosure: I am Sophia Drossopoulou, and I have often collaborated with James. 209.35.70.71 (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete This person does not attain notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). His racist (see 2022 deletion) views in themselves are not relevant but they illustrate the use he is making of this article for promotion of political views. This is confirmed by his edit today at Waitangi Tribunal, where his edit cannot be attributed to ignorance or a good faith error, due to his background in academia. The one secondary source provided is of low quality and focuses on only one event, in 2016. Even if accepted as a genuine RSS, because it is only one event, he is not deemed notable. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC) (this is a duplicate vote for reasons stated below this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC))

:: @Roger 8 Roger, your nomination is taken as a delete !vote. You can't also !vote in the discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Miscellaneous advice. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• :Delete Speedy Protect PROMO RACIST per nom. BLP1E. POV
• :why this is still here? - this article is well below multiple criteria for speedy deletion (G10, G11, A6, A7) as well as notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT).
• :In particular, the only reference cited by the wikipedia page has no actual information on the subject! That should be more than enough to get rid of this (as if the rest of it wasn't enough). Jameskjx (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Assuming you are James Noble (the connection between username is obvious) you can request self-deletion of your article per WP:BLPREQUEST, I'd look into that if you don't want an article (Assuming you are James Noble). Traumnovelle (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Winning a prize is not enough to make a whole article. As it stands it's barely enough for a stub. What notable contributions to computer science has he made? What has he published? I realize that Google Scholar could probably shed light on these questions, but it's the author's job to study these. Athel cb (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Delete speedy... Jameskjx (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Almost the entire discussion above is predicated on the wrong notability criterion, WP:GNG, when he should be evaluated against WP:PROF, which is independent of GNG and does not require independent sourcing. The nomination statement is worse, as says nothing about WP:BEFORE evaluation against notability criteria beyond the merest WP:VAGUEWAVE. His citation record passes WP:PROF#C1. "Founding Editor-In-Chief of the journal Transactions on Pattern Languages of Programming" (removed as part of large-scale gutting of the article by the deletion nominator) passes WP:PROF#C8. Fellow of the Institute of IT Professionals of New Zealand and the British Computer Society could well pass WP:PROF#C3 depending how selective they are. Full professorship in the UK system operating at NZ universities is somewhat more selective than at US universities and may be a step towards #C5, although I think not a full step in that direction. The award is a pass of WP:PROF#C2 (for the senior-level award, the one he has; the junior one wouldn't be): we describe it as a highly prestigious in its area (software engineering, a major subfield of computer science) and every winner is bluelinked, significant evidence for its prestigiousness. Deleting this article would make him the only non-linked winner. He may have expressed distasteful views in his social media but that is not part of the article and not an argument for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• The subject passes WP:PROF per David Eppstein's analysis, so I would normally be in favor of Keep, but as of writing this comment, the article has zero sources. Perhaps it might be a good idea to Draftify so an editor can complete the article. Madeleine (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Much of it can be sourced to [https://homepages.ecs.vuw.ac.nz/~kjx/cv.pdf his 2022 curriculum vitae]. It's obviously not independent, so usable only for uncontrove×rsial education and career details, not evaluation and opinion, but I think that's all we really need. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - even if he passes PROF, we need more sources than just one, which would violate our rules against WP:OR and WP:BLP. We also recently deleted the article of a notable dancer who was featured in a documentary about Madonna, because it was substantially an autobiography. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:: @User:Bearian please have a look at WP:NPROF first before you cast your vote. An academic is not a dancer, we have very clear guidelines in WP:NPROF which are sufficient for notability. Other guidelines that you cite do not apply here. We do have multiple sources to establish notability per WP:NPROF#1, namely Google Scholar and Scopus. --hroest 03:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I've read it and have discussed PROF in hundreds of AfDs. When I see at least one more reliable, independent, secondary source about him in the article, then I'll change my !vote. You do your thing. Bearian (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It seems we agree that NPROF applies here and even that he potentially passes NPROF? If we agree on that, NPROF states that the guideline is independent from WP:BIO and is explicitly an alternative path to notability and that any reliable source that demonstrates NPROF#1 or NPROF#2 is sufficient. Your request for additional sources again is covered by NPROF which clearly states that no independent sources to confirm trivial undisputed facts are required under NPROF. Are you disputing that a reliable source exists to demonstrate that he passes NPROF or are you unhappy with NPROF as a guideline itself? Because reading your argument it seems you are trying to challenge NPROF itself and its assertion that it provides an alternative path to notability independent of GNG. However this AfD is not the correct place to have this discussion, if you disagree with NPROF itself, we should have this discussion over there. --hroest 15:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment While it isn't a usable independent source, he has a bio [https://homepages.ecs.vuw.ac.nz/~kjx/bio/bio200words-sinz here] that might indicate other places to look for further information. He is an adjunct prof, but was a prof from 2003 to 2022, and seems to be currently freelancing. His [https://homepages.ecs.vuw.ac.nz/~kjx/cv.html CV] (very detailed) lists other awards. Would confirming those add to notability? Lamona (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I'm looking into the awards, although most are not "big" - these are awards given to the "best paper" at a conference, and I don't think they are enough for notability:
• :* Best Paper Award, Eighth European Conference on Pattern Languages of Program Design (EuroPLoP) 2003
• :* Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference “Best Paper Award” 2010.
• :This also does not seem to be notable in the WP sense:
• :* VUW PGSA Award: Best Supervisor in the Faculty of Engineering 2010.
• :This is the only one I have so far been able to confirm that might be significant but not sufficient:
• :* The ACM SIGPLAN Most Influential OOPSLA Paper for 2008, was shared by the three authors of the paper: David G. Clarke, John M. Potter, and James Noble
• :Lamona (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment NPROF states 'Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources', but no reliable sources (a CV isn't reliable its self-published) have been presented. Notability ultimately cannot override WP:V and if there are no reliable sources to use we simply cannot maintain an article irrespective of SNGs. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Traumnovelle the reliable sources in this case are [https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=7202238195 Scopus] and [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=SSUL-D8AAAAJ Google Scholar] to substantiate the claim he passes NPROF#1 and [https://sites.google.com/aito.org/home/aito-dahl-nygaard/2016-winners the organization providing the award] for the claim he passes NPROF#2. All of these sources are independent from the subject and can be considered reliable. But yes, just trusting the CV doesnt do but these sources hold up. --hroest 17:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::And what exactly can you write with these sources? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Traumnovelle Nothing per se but that is not the point, the point is that reliable, independent sources establish notability and the article can then be written per his CV / institutional page and biography on the award homepage as WP:NPROF intended. There is a very specific reason things are done this way for academics, to avoid the embarrassment of the Donna Strickland case. Often academics do not have SIGCOV but are notable due to their contributions to advance human knowledge in a field as judged by experts in that specific field but not widely known to the general public. --hroest 12:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::WP:NOTABILITY states 'Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article' and WP:SNG states 'Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions. The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia.' If we cannot write an actual article with reliable independent sources then we should not have one. NPROF allows for less coverage but there should still be something so we can have an actual article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Citation record looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1, even in a medium citation field, as backed up by Google Scholar [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=SSUL-D8AAAAJ]. I don't think that the editorship of the series Transactions on Pattern Languages [https://www.springer.com/series/8677] passes NPROF C8, but it may give some support. I take the Dahl-Nygaard prize somewhat more seriously for NPROF C2 [https://sites.google.com/aito-services.org/home/aito-dahl-nygaard]. I am skeptical of NPROF C3 -- the British Computer Society fellowship, per their description [https://www.bcs.org/membership-and-registrations/become-a-member/bcs-fellowship/#FAQs] does not seem to be the kind of fellowship that we're looking for. The Institute of IT Professional fellowship looks a little stronger [https://itp.nz/fellows], although I'm uncertain whether it is the kind of scholarly society that we are looking for. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The editor being discussed has recently added a lengthy comment to a talk page discussion here. It may or may not be relevant to this discussion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NPROF is a guideline and WP:V is a policy. WP:DELETION, which is also policy states 'If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.'

:Simply put if we do not have any sources to verify basic details to have an actual article and not just a list of his papers and awards we should not have an article, irrespective of any WP:SNG. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Per David Eppstein, he meets WP:PROF. I have added back two sources - the 2016 Dahl-Nygaard Prize winners (which includes a bio of Noble), and his Victoria University Wellington profile. Such university profile pages are the main source of info for academics - their notability comes through the criteria listed at WP:PROF. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Well, I did add back two sources. The nominator of this AfD (who deleted text and refs before bringing the article to AfD) has deleted the university profile, with the edit summary "Best not to edit this article while an AFD is taking place." Wikipedia:Guide to deletion states clearly WP:EDITATAFD "You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period." RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Nobel meets WP:NPROF according to the criteria and verified by sources specified there. If you are unfamiliar with NPROF and think it is something Wikipedia should not use, raise the issue elsewhere. This is the not the place for such discussions.

:StarryGrandma (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:

::Comment To be specific, as well as important, we are not looking for other policies because WP:NPROF is a guideline, not a policy. It is poorly written anyway but read it carefully and it boils down to a person having to be notable as verified by independent reliable secondary sources, both of which are policy requirements. The notability hinges on several citations to several academic publications that name him as one of the authors. The 2016 prize was a single event and as such should be dismissed as not enough to verify notability. Based on some of the comments here, almost every person teaching at a tertiary institution who happens to have her or his name added to two or three internally published papers that sit gathering dust on a library shelf, suddenly becomes notable and worthy of an Wikipedia article. Does it matter that the subject of the article in question also says, above, that it should be deleted? I agree, a wider audience would be welcome. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Comment @User:Roger 8 Roger it seems like you are intentionally trying to discredit WP:NPROF which was written after lots of discussion and debate, if you have something to contribute please dont hijack the current AfD for your grievances. almost every person teaching at a tertiary institution who happens to have her or his name added to two or three internally published papers that sit gathering dust on a library shelf, suddenly becomes notable and worthy of an Wikipedia article. is a deliberate misrepresentation of the intent, spirit and letter of WP:NPROF which is written to exactly prevent that which you could have gathered from reading the documents point #1 "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Passing NPROF is sufficient for notability. Cheers --hroest 13:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|Roger 8 Roger}}, please remember that Wikipedia:Notability, including the WP:GNG section, is also "merely a guideline". StarryGrandma (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Slightly surprising responses. StarryGrandma, why should I remove a factual statement? I will remove the word 'merely' which could be seen as a slight but that is all. It does sound as if you want to ignore the fact that WP:NPROF is a guideline, not policy, but I assume that is not what you mean. Please elaborate if you want to. Hi hrest, I'm not hijacking or discrediting anything, or dismissing WP:NPROF. If you mean the 'poorly written' part, I think it is - it is too detailed and constantly uses 'impact'. (What's wrong with 'effect' or 'affect'.? It looks as though a small group of editors has written some rules that allow them to sideline Wikipedia policy rules. But this is off-topic. I'm sorry if you were one of the team who wrote the guideline, I'm just giving an opinion. To get back on topic, and the quotation you use, yes, I do think that (only) in some cases, certain people are unreasonably elevated to a position of notability. Academics would sometimes fit that description. I want to keep it simple - what makes this person notable outside a very small clique? I am sorry if my mildly flowery language has upset anyone. Removed 'merely'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per David Eppstein and RebeccaGreen. Thank you for your analysis - I find it persuasive and consistent with my experience at WP:AFD. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – Satisfies WP:NPROF #1 (Google Scholar shows an h-index of 57 and >20 papers with 100+ citations) and WP:NPROF #2 (winner of the 2016 Dahl-Nygaard Senior Prize). Pollia (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.