Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Jepson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bryan Jepson[edit]
Orphaned article about non-notable individual, per Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Although person has almost 8000 google hits, he doesn't seem to fit well under any of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). But I don't know a lot about autism research, so my vote for deletion can only be one of "weak delete" in light of the google hits, which I haven't completely sifted through. Snocrates 03:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: There is one article in a local newspaper covering an appearance, but I don't see enough to fulfill WP:PROF. MastCell Talk 04:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This, this and these Google scholar results indicate that he is a reputed authority on autism. Definitely notable -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 06:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The first link indicates that he spoke at a conference. The second link indicates that he wrote a book. Neither of these makes him notable.
- I could only find one peer-reviewed paper by Jepson [1] and it's not about autism. Four results on Google scholar is, frankly, pathetic. (I return way more hits than that and I'm certainly not notable.)
- If he's an "authority", where's the recognition from his peers? If he's "definitely notable", how come he's been so thoroughly ignored by the national media? Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. This person is of no stature, but has simply been inserted in a bid to mislead parents into thinking there is credible opinion to attack vaccines and make money for autism quacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.124.221 (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Searching on Google for "Bryan Jepson" gives just 271 hits, searching without "" gives 512 Ghits, so I don't know where the figure 8000 mentioned by Snocrates above comes from. As mentioned by Sideshow Bob Roberts, the 4 hits on Google Scholar are not very impressive. Even less impressive is the fact Jepson appears not to have been cited (even the only paper that I could localize in Web of Science, the above mentioned paper in Pediatrics, has been cited only 17 times). In short, from Google Scholar and WoS it is clear that this person is not notable as an academic at all. From what I see in Google and above, I don't think that he's notable according to WP:FRINGE, either. --Crusio (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how you search on google. I use quotes and get 7,730 by this search. Searching without quotes using this search gives me 39,400 hits. Perhaps you're using a filtered search of some kind. Snocrates 21:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is weird. This is my search, as far as I can see it is unfiltered. The results page says there are 1090 results, which condense to 271 (with the usual disclaimer of "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 271 already displayed"). I get exactly the same result using your search above. No clue what is going on here.... --Crusio (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; no notability, as shown above. The Google Scholar information is rather pathetic for a modern scholar writing in the Western world--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I haven't looked at this particular article yet, but the autism and anti-vaccine activists have colonized Wikipedia to a significant extent, meaning that there is a lot of coverage in Wikipedia on these topics. It's my sense that some of the article contributors may be a bit over-broad in their sense of what is notable on this issue. --Lquilter (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Highly notable nutritional doctor. john (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete An emergency medicine MD, whose contributions WRT to WP:PROF basically amount to one book (per Crusio, above). The book's grounds for notability are dubious, authorship of a single book doesn't imho confer notability. The theories he's supporting (rather than originating, as I understand it) seem to pass WP:FRINGE by a wide margin, but I don't see him inheriting encyclopedic notability from writing this book. Since the book is largely a synopsis of work out of the Autism Research Institute (as I understand it) a merge to that page may be more appropriate than a keep. He's no Simon Baron-Cohen, nor is he an Andrew Wakefield for that matter. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notable scientific work on autism or anything else. one popular oriented book, with uncritical stories in two local news sources. DGG (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable per google scholar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 5 December 2007 (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.