Talk:Thunderf00t: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:50, 26 October 2013 editIntoThinAir (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers114,580 edits reply to the C of E← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:08, 26 October 2013 edit undoThe C of E (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,008 edits replyNext edit →
Line 8:		Line 8:
	:May I ask how he meets the notability guideline for academics since that was one of the reasons for deletion last time? Because it does say "Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are." Plus the sourcing issue that was a problem last time still remains. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 08:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)		:May I ask how he meets the notability guideline for academics since that was one of the reasons for deletion last time? Because it does say "Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are." Plus the sourcing issue that was a problem last time still remains. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 08:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Right, well as someone who remembers the old version of this article, I feel that his notability as a scientist was not established in the old version of this article, but that it is now. Specifically, one person said that "there is no evidence Mr. Mason meets Misplaced Pages's academic notability guideline." However, it seems that Mr. Mason is frequently cited for his research by other scientists; his PNAS paper alone has 153 citations on Google Scholar. Additionally, here is a source that can be incorporated into the article that isn't a blog: ] ] 12:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)		::Right, well as someone who remembers the old version of this article, I feel that his notability as a scientist was not established in the old version of this article, but that it is now. Specifically, one person said that "there is no evidence Mr. Mason meets Misplaced Pages's academic notability guideline." However, it seems that Mr. Mason is frequently cited for his research by other scientists; his PNAS paper alone has 153 citations on Google Scholar. Additionally, here is a source that can be incorporated into the article that isn't a blog: ] ] 12:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
			:::OK, I would prefer to see more reliable sources in it and less of the unreliable sources and youtube (which should really be removed but since there is a lack of reliable ones, there wouldn't be much to cite everything). Just another question, subsection does say that Google Scholar isn't accurate for measuring the number of citations, could a more accurate verification technique be used to alleviate my concerns? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 17:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:08, 26 October 2013

This article was nominated for deletion on May 31 2012. The result of the discussion was delete.

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because while Mason may not meet the notability guideline as a result of his YouTube activities, he does meet the guideline for academics, as he has published a number of highly cited papers, which include, in addition to those already in the article, the following: and Jinkinson talk to me 03:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

May I ask how he meets the notability guideline for academics since that was one of the reasons for deletion last time? Because it does say "Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are." Plus the sourcing issue that was a problem last time still remains. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, well as someone who remembers the old version of this article, I feel that his notability as a scientist was not established in the old version of this article, but that it is now. Specifically, one person said that "there is no evidence Mr. Mason meets Misplaced Pages's academic notability guideline." However, it seems that Mr. Mason is frequently cited for his research by other scientists; his PNAS paper alone has 153 citations on Google Scholar. Additionally, here is a source that can be incorporated into the article that isn't a blog: Jinkinson talk to me 12:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I would prefer to see more reliable sources in it and less of the unreliable sources and youtube (which should really be removed but since there is a lack of reliable ones, there wouldn't be much to cite everything). Just another question, The citation metrics subsection does say that Google Scholar isn't accurate for measuring the number of citations, could a more accurate verification technique be used to alleviate my concerns? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)