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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 13:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Plater-Zyberk[edit]

Henry Plater-Zyberk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article fails both WP:Notability and WP:Notability (academics) on all counts. Furthermore, no non-trivial independent sources are provided or can be found. Colchicum (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a scholar within the Advanced Research and Assessment Group of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, his opinions are used by the British government to help in the formulating of defence policy. He is also a cited scholar, and even the Russian media cite him, such as Novaya Gazeta[1]. In addition to lecturing at the DA, he is also guest lectured at other institutions such as the Polish Defence Academy[2]. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Far from every lousy scholar is notable for Wikipedia. I have read the article and even tried to find out more. But there are zillions of guest lecturers all over the world, and probably there are as many analysts in the British government. This is not a criterion of notability as per both common sense and WP:Notability (academics), which is fairly explicit. Where was this "cited scholar" cited? Several occasional mentions in the press don't make up notability. Most of his works listed in the article look like working papers of his academy, 10-20 pp long booklets. This certainly doesn't qualify as "he has published widely on his field of expertise". Moreover, simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1, and his cv doesn't even look impressive as to this particular field. And, after all, where are your independent reliable sources? From what I have seen it is evident that his notability is well below average, probably even lesser than mine. Colchicum (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Plain non-notable. There are not enough third-party sources to establish notability (his own claims and interview do not count). Citation index is not a notability proof, and I did not see the one. There are same problems with Richard Sakwa.Biophys (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A widely cited author who has published more than 20 major works in his field of expertise. Offliner (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for his citation index, please. I am afraid that your claims are a bit misleading. He is not widely cited by any stretch of imagination. And these 20 works are not "major works", but short booklets published as working papers of his institute, with the following disclaimer: "the views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the UK Ministry of Defence". Here is a revealing exaple of one of these "major works": [3]. He might well have 2.000 of them and still be non-notable. Anyway, per our notability criteria the number of publications is rarely relevant. Colchicum (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The disclaimer means nothing at all. As the DA of the UK is a government institution, and is linked to the Britsh defence ministry, published academics views, and publications published by the Academy, may not reflect the official UK government policy. That is it the total extent to any disclaimer; nothing more, nothing less. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'd love to say keep, but after carefully reviewing all the notability requirements listed at WP:Notability (academics), he just isn't notable enough. -- PEPSI2786^talk 05:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete because the nature of the work is such that we will be unable to demonstrate the usual criteria. DGG (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Vote Keep, as a number of his works are cited in WP. Notability guidelines are only guidelines, not laws. Consensus matters. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Vote Keep. When I have to choose between five conspiracy theory articles on the Russian apartment bombings, and an article on someone with at least 28 mentions on Google Scholar (perhaps some of the "H. Plater-Zyberk" mentions are not repeated in the "Henry Plater-Zyberk" ones [4]) in various languages (I have found Googles and Google Scholar mentions in Dutch, Italian, Czech and Polish) I know what should be on Wikipedia. Note that our last paragraph on the Notability of scholars now warns that Web of Science may not really be a good instrument of measuring general notability.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2009 (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.