Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Tanke
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 no consensus to delete.. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Darren Tanke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article about a museum technician most likely written by the subject of the article. Cites no sources that are 'about' this person. Although this person is certainly accomplished, I don't believe what's in the article establishes true notability. ike9898 (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC) ike9898 (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Long list of publications, but a Google Scholar search showed no evidence of publications being significantly cited. Lots of unencyclopedic detail in article doesn't help. Some Google News results but not enough to be convincing for demonstrating notability. If the article's author would like to suggest a notability guideline that may be met, I would, however, be happy to reconsider.--Michig (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I'm swayed a little by the arguments below but this Google Scholar search looks a little marginal for notability purposes.--Michig (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC) His work being cited in Wikipedia articles is not a convincing argument for notability, though, in my view.--Michig (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't use quotes around his name, as he's cited in many articles as Tanke, D., D.H. Tanke, D. Tanke, etc. If you click the link I provided below, you can clearly see that every link on the first nine pages (the first 90 Google Scholar articles, and some after that) are all paleontological works citing Darren Tanke. You'll get an artificially low Google Scholar result if you do searches within quotes on any paleontologist: "Robert Bakker", for example, returns only about 100 valid Google Scholar hits. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article is linked from Allosaurus, Dinosaur, Tyrannosaurus, Tyrannosauridae, Daspletosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus, Styracosaurus, Pachyrhinosaurus, and Majungasaurus, nearly all of which are Featured Articles. And in each case, Mr. Tanke's works are cited as sources on these rather important fossil genera. In other words, numerous FAs already point to Tanke's accomplishments in the field of paleontology. It would be a little strange to delete Tanke's article based on lack of notability while noting his scientific opinions in multiple (eight) Featured Articles! Subject has appeared in a televised documentary (someone found him worthy of notice), as noted by IMDB [1]; this is already stated in the article. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) clearly applies: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline, etc. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also mention I found 4,260 ghits on Google Scholar for Darren Tanke, meaning his work is cited in many academic papers. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I'm not using the right search term - can you provide some examples from Google Scholar where, for example, Darren Tanke is the primary author and a paper has more than, say, 20 cites? I can come up with 13 cites of my own work, and I certainly don't merit an article. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, and given that Wikipedia is not a valid reliable source, evidence of his work being substantially cited in other recognized academic works would be the most convincing argument for notability.--Michig (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little confused, Michig: in your first message, you ask for "evidence of [Tanke's] publications being significantly cited." I provided a link to Google Scholar. Immediately above, however, you ask for papers from Google Scholar where "Darren Tanke is the primary author and a paper has more than, say, 20 cites". You compare yourself to Mr. Tanke, but you've provided no evidence that you've appeared in documentaries where you were interviewed about your scientific opinions, so the analogy seems a little inapt. No offense is intended. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't comparing myself to Mr. Tanke, merely pointing out that virtually anyone who has ever worked in a research role will result in Google Scholar hits. The measure of whether their work is notable is how widely it is cited by other academics. I would expect a notable academic to have published at least one piece of work that is cited by more than 20 others, as Robert Bakker does with ease even when enclosed in quote marks. The requirement for evidence of notability does not fall on me - my point above was solely about the notability of Tanke being demonstrated as an academic, which you would be well advised to address with regard to the appropriate guideline rather than questioning whether I have "appeared in documentaries".--Michig (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bizarre. You asked for Google Scholar hits, and I provided a link to many. Your search didn't work because few Google Scholar citations are going to appear in the form "Darren Tanke"; do you normally conduct Google Scholar searches that way? You then changed tack and requested Google Scholar hits on a Tanke paper with more than 20 cites by other papers. You did compare yourself to Tanke by listing the number of citations you've got vs the number he would need to satisfy you, ignoring the fact that Mr. Tanke has already appeared in several documentaries as already noted in the article. I did not "question whether you've appeared in documentaries"; I said your analogy is inapt. And it is; since you haven't appeared in any documentaries, it would be hard to say that such comparison can be made. Simply tallying Google Scholar citations using an ineffective search term won't help us here. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Google Scholar search with quotes returns the same most-cited results as a search without quotes. You said to me "you've provided no evidence that you've appeared in documentaries" but now claim "I did not question whether you've appeared in documentaries" - your arguments are ridiculous, and a waste of both your time and mine. I must assume you having nothing to add to the article (which contains no evidence of notability - only 2 sources, one of which only lists his name and the other which doesn't mention him at all) or to this discussion, in order to demonstrate notability. --Michig (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I find your arguments as ridiculous as you find mine, Michig, and I also find it ridiculous that you've changed your !vote to delete in a fit of pique. Clearly, your Google Scholar search methods are sub-par, and I question your methods of determining notability using Google Scholar. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop trolling and come up with some better evidence of notability. The onus is on you to prove notability not others to disprove it.--Michig (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I find your arguments as ridiculous as you find mine, Michig, and I also find it ridiculous that you've changed your !vote to delete in a fit of pique. Clearly, your Google Scholar search methods are sub-par, and I question your methods of determining notability using Google Scholar. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Google Scholar search with quotes returns the same most-cited results as a search without quotes. You said to me "you've provided no evidence that you've appeared in documentaries" but now claim "I did not question whether you've appeared in documentaries" - your arguments are ridiculous, and a waste of both your time and mine. I must assume you having nothing to add to the article (which contains no evidence of notability - only 2 sources, one of which only lists his name and the other which doesn't mention him at all) or to this discussion, in order to demonstrate notability. --Michig (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bizarre. You asked for Google Scholar hits, and I provided a link to many. Your search didn't work because few Google Scholar citations are going to appear in the form "Darren Tanke"; do you normally conduct Google Scholar searches that way? You then changed tack and requested Google Scholar hits on a Tanke paper with more than 20 cites by other papers. You did compare yourself to Tanke by listing the number of citations you've got vs the number he would need to satisfy you, ignoring the fact that Mr. Tanke has already appeared in several documentaries as already noted in the article. I did not "question whether you've appeared in documentaries"; I said your analogy is inapt. And it is; since you haven't appeared in any documentaries, it would be hard to say that such comparison can be made. Simply tallying Google Scholar citations using an ineffective search term won't help us here. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't comparing myself to Mr. Tanke, merely pointing out that virtually anyone who has ever worked in a research role will result in Google Scholar hits. The measure of whether their work is notable is how widely it is cited by other academics. I would expect a notable academic to have published at least one piece of work that is cited by more than 20 others, as Robert Bakker does with ease even when enclosed in quote marks. The requirement for evidence of notability does not fall on me - my point above was solely about the notability of Tanke being demonstrated as an academic, which you would be well advised to address with regard to the appropriate guideline rather than questioning whether I have "appeared in documentaries".--Michig (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little confused, Michig: in your first message, you ask for "evidence of [Tanke's] publications being significantly cited." I provided a link to Google Scholar. Immediately above, however, you ask for papers from Google Scholar where "Darren Tanke is the primary author and a paper has more than, say, 20 cites". You compare yourself to Mr. Tanke, but you've provided no evidence that you've appeared in documentaries where you were interviewed about your scientific opinions, so the analogy seems a little inapt. No offense is intended. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I'm not using the right search term - can you provide some examples from Google Scholar where, for example, Darren Tanke is the primary author and a paper has more than, say, 20 cites? I can come up with 13 cites of my own work, and I certainly don't merit an article. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, and given that Wikipedia is not a valid reliable source, evidence of his work being substantially cited in other recognized academic works would be the most convincing argument for notability.--Michig (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also mention I found 4,260 ghits on Google Scholar for Darren Tanke, meaning his work is cited in many academic papers. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep clearly notable as an authority in his field. DGG (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG's comment. Although, the article is in major need of clean-up, IMO. --Spotty11222 (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Original nominator comment Let's say the result of this process is 'keep'. Are the any reliable sources 'about' this person? If not, then little of the article is supportable. I certainly would cut all sorts of stuff about his childhood love of dinosaurs and his maintenance of museum facebook pages. ike9898 (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, trim material as needed; the article didn't have that stuff when I edited it in '07[2]. But it makes no sense to me to delete an article on someone who has clearly had a major influence on current paleontological thinking. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate it when users zealously trim away everything that is not supported by a reference, even though that is allowable, so I certainly won't go overboard. BUT, if hypothetically someone were to do that, what would you be left with? You can't even really say that he's had a major impact on the field, because that would be a POV interpretation of his publication record. ike9898 (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can say:
- I hate it when users zealously trim away everything that is not supported by a reference, even though that is allowable, so I certainly won't go overboard. BUT, if hypothetically someone were to do that, what would you be left with? You can't even really say that he's had a major impact on the field, because that would be a POV interpretation of his publication record. ike9898 (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, trim material as needed; the article didn't have that stuff when I edited it in '07[2]. But it makes no sense to me to delete an article on someone who has clearly had a major influence on current paleontological thinking. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Darren H. Tanke is a Canadian technician of the Dinosaur Research Program at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology in Drumheller, Alberta. Born in Calgary, Tanke became interested in natural history at an early age. In 1979, Tanke began working for Philip J. Currie in the paleontology department of the Provincial Museum of Alberta, originally as a volunteer. From 1979 until 2005 (when Dr. Currie left the Tyrrell to become a professor at the University of Alberta in Edmonton) Tanke worked as a lab and field technician.
Editor of Mesozoic Vertebrate Life: New Research Inspired by the Paleontology of Philip J. Currie, Tanke appeared in the 1998 documentary film Dinosaur Park,[1] and the 1993 educational film Messages in Stone.[2]
Tanke has authored several papers on dinosaurs; his recent work includes preparation of Pachyrhinosaurus fossils.
- You can include some of the lab and field work stuff. You can mention his naming of the new Pachyrhinosaurus species (there are press releases, if an independent citation is needed). Then you can add:
Tanke has also authored papers on Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus, Daspletosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus, Styracosaurus, Pachyrhinosaurus, Majungasaurus, Chasmosaurus, Stegoceras, Centrosaurus, Eoceratops, and various other hadrosaurids, ceratopsians, and tyrannosaurids. (This is not an exhaustive listing). Source each of these either to his own papers, or use the Paleobiology Database[3] or DinoData.org[4] This avoids a POV statement that he's had an impact on paleontology, while demonstrating his impact on current paleontological science. Include his bio here
- You can mention his preparation of parts of The Dinosauria (2004), one of the most important works in modern paleontology (easily sourced). You can keep his list of publications, cite some of it, or trim as needed. Include a link to the Dinosaurs of the Deep site, and the Royal Tyrrell Museum.
- I say you in a generalist term only, just responding to the hypothetical question you posed above. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:26, 11 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.