Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Hayes-Roth

:{{la|Rick_Hayes-Roth}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Rick_Hayes-Roth}})

The notability of the subject was called into question with a notability tag and topic on on the entry's discussion page on October 19. As of October 22, no support for removing the notability tag had emerged. The tag was initially added as there was a total absence of substantial references; all references in the biographical entry were papers bylined by the subject of the biography itself. Further, the subject of the biography has been linking to this Wikipedia vanity biography in paid advertisements he's been taking out for his company. CentralError (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete CentralError (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Google searching (best without the contracted forename Rick) turns up references to the subject, for example all the way back to [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=jaFWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lOcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5586,5391497&dq=hayes-roth+expert+systems&hl=en Sydney Morning Herald (1989)] and earlier behind paywalls; his [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=989868610648324190&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en "Building Expert Systems] and [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=18393173163299682669&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en "Blackboard Architecture"] books seem heavily cited on Scholar. One for improvement rather than deletion. AllyD (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

::Total references provided by entry: 5. Of these, 3 are authored by the subject of the entry himself, 1 is an articles published in an online magazine that makes tangential and passing reference to the subject of the entry, the fifth is an interview of the subject of the entry himself published in aforementioned and same online magazine. CentralError (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

::* There is also the AAAI citation. But more brqadly, keep in mind :WP:BEFORE no.2: it isn't just what is in the article, it is what can be found to verify notability. Hence the importance of the Google Scholar search, for example, AllyD (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

:::* addressed below CentralError (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

:* Comment Looking at this a bit further, I'm baffled by the proposer's suggestion of "a total absence of substantial references" in the article as its exists. This is contradicted by the article's explicit referenced citation of the subject's 1992 election as an AAAI fellow. Because of that alone, I will be removing the Notability tag (whose addition was, I note, the proposer's first contribution to Wikipedia). AllyD (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

:::The hell you are. I have just restored it. Do not make unilateral removals of tags without attempting to build consensus. CentralError (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep A search of Google Books confirms notability, as per Wikipedia requirements [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Rick%20Hayes-Roth%22&biw=1118&bih=627&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp]. And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

::Did you read any of the citations you googled up? The first page consists almost entirely of articles written by the subject of the article (similar to the so-called "references" used in the entry itself). If I write a letter-to-the-editor to ComputerWorld I don't get a Wikipedia entry. CentralError (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Keep. Search on GS for "Frederick Hayes-Roth" gives h-index of 30+. Enough to satisfy WP:Prof#C1 in this highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC).
• Something odd here. A biography of a living person started about five years ago by a single purpose account with an apparent conflict of interest and with almost all the substantial editing since done from IP addresses or by other SPAs. Then a few days ago, another SPA slaps a notability tag onto the article in their first ever Wikipedia edit and puts it up for AfD just three days later. So, leaving the history aside, is the AfD justified? Well, the article is written in a rather over-promotional style and depends almost entirely on primary sources, which is scarcely surprising in an article with its history. But one of the facts in the article, the fellowship of the AAAI, seems to meet WP:PROF#3 - it's sourced from the awarding organisation, but we generally allow that. And deletion is meant to be decided on the notability of the subject, not the state of the article. And Googling on the subject's full name, Frederick Hayes-Roth, ({{find|Frederick Hayes-Roth}}) rather suggests that the subject is indeed notable - and probably passes WP:PROF#1 rather handily, for work from about thirty years ago that scarcely gets a mention in the article. His work on commercial AI and expert systems in the 1980s and 1990s might also be notable, though if so the evidence must mostly be off-line. His more recent concerns might yet prove notable, but the evidence doesn't seem to be in yet. So on the basis of his early work, keep - but the article needs a rewrite to make this clear. PWilkinson (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep notable, but of course the article needs a total rewrite from a promotional resumé into an encyclopedia article. My preference would be to use more chronological order, as noted above spend time on the early work that was pioneering rather than the latest as a resumé does. W Nowicki (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

: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.