Talk:Ronald Collé

Deletion

I have proposed this article for deletion because it is a biography of not-very-notable person. A Google search for Ronald Collé got 110 hits. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 00:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, and if you are incompetent, you won't check the forms likely to appear in citations to journal articles, "R Colle" 953 hits, "R Colle" and "Colle R" 11,800 hits. Many of them are not this Ronald Colle, of course—but many of them are.

Repeating what I said on my talk page: My major point is that there is enough doubt there to make it not non-controversial. Use WP:AfD instead; it doesn't belong in this test-stage, as-yet-unapproved shortcut procedure, and if you keep nominating things that might be controversial, then that procedure may never be approved.

We have articles about every fictional Pokemon character, and they appear to be more prolific than rabbits. We have articles about some Bangladeshi cricketer who played one "test match" back in the 1950s.

It's about time the sciences get a fair shake in comparison to sports and entertainment figures, and fictional characters of all sorts

.

Where's your evidence that none of the professional journals in which he is published has a circulation of 5,000?

Publishing in those journals is one thing. Isn't being the editor of one of those professional journals also evidence of notability?

Note further that the template itself says, probably not clearly enough, that a way to get it out of this speedy process for non-controversial deletions is to delete the template.

In addition to your speculations about the original contributor to this article and your guessing as to his or her motives, a "Profcolle" is also a contributor to this article. That may well be the subject of this article, or his wife. But so what? Note carefully that that, in itself, is not grounds for deletion of the article, even if it is him or her. Gene Nygaard 22:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Applying the professor test (If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor) I would say maybe. Most of his papers have citation counts in the single digits to mid-teens, which is respectable but not evidence that he is more highly regarded than the average professor in his field; however a couple of his articles have very high citation counts (unless there is more than one R Colle in the field of physics). Regarding the word "incompetent", WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA please.Thatcher131 22:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs to be cleaned up to meet wikipedia's guidelines, see the manual of style, and Wikipedia:your first article. Also see the guidelines on articles about living people, WP:BIO. This article does not cite any sources, see the policy on verifiability. Mr. Colle may have done some notable things in his career but this article is written in much too much detail for an encyclopedia and does not cite any sources verifying the claims. It may be subject to deletion if verifiability can not be established. Thanks.

Copyright violation

The large chunk of text beginning CAREER BIOGRAPHICAL HIGHLIGHTS by Dr. Bert M. COURSEY is a copyright violation unless Dr. Coursey himself posted the information or the poster has permission from Dr. Coursey per the WP:GFDL copyright license that applies to wikipedia. Even without the copyright problem it is much too long and not encyclopedic in style. Please rewrite it in a brief, encylopedic style to conform to wikipedia's manual of style and to avoid copyright problems. Thank you. Thatcher131 21:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Porturology (talk · contribs), why did you copyvio the whole article? I didn't see any problems with the top paragraph. Thatcher131 23:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Whos who

Copied from the article. They might go into a reference section eventually, but who's who is generally not a very discriminating source.Thatcher131 03:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Biographical Listings (first listings)include:

American Men and Women in Science, 14th ed. Bowker Co. (1979) through 26th ed. (2005).

Who's Who in Technology Today, 3rd ed. Dick Publ. (1982); 4th ed. (1984).

Who's Who in the East, 19th ed., Marquis (1984).

Who's Who in America, 42nd ed., Marquis (1987) through 60th ed (2006)

Who's Who in the World 24th ed., Marquis (2007).

Question for the original authors

When was Rolle the editor of the NIST journal? He isn't as of 2006. Knowing the dates would save me a trip to the library. Thanks. Thatcher131 05:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation in standards

One of the Google hits appears to be a citation of one of his papers in an IEEE standard, but the link is a members website. I was just curious if citations such as this, rather than citations in another journal article, show up when the people do these citations checks?

Here is what Google had. Gene Nygaard 06:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[PDF] IEEE Std N42.25-1997 American National Standard Calibration and ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat [B1] Colle, R., “Use of the Harmonic Mean: On Averaging Count14 Rate Data for Variable-Time, Fixed-. Count Intervals,” Radioactivity & Radiochemistry, vol. ... ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel4/4908/13525/00621601.pdf?arnumber=621601 - Similar pages

• I can't tell for sure but I don't think so. The 1996 article in Radioactivity & Radiochemistry has 9 citations in the ISI Web of Science but for some reason it doesn't allow me to see them, so I don't know for sure; however I think web of science only cross refs journal articles.Thatcher131 16:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Source

Is there a source online that says he went to Georgia Tech? I'm working on List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni and he's one of the few that I can't find a reference for. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I have no interest whatsoever in working on this article, but I see there's a lot of talk about how it's not sourced and little effort into fixing it. If there aren't some sources cited in this article in the next few days, there's not going to be much left to it. Policy states any unsourced information is to be removed immediately. With practically no information coupled with questionable notability, it may not survive a third AfD. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 18:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD results

The result was keep: significantly rewritten to address problems. `'mikka 19:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Significantly rewritten? It has three references all from NIST, which was the ONLY external link listed to begin with. There are no sources for the majority of claims in the article. It has been expanded by two sentences. What purpose does someone have for using this article for anything? If all the information can be gathered from another website--and with more information than what is here--what purpose does this article serve?

This article should have been deleted years ago. Instead, it's being kept as a sore on Wikipedia by people who apparently have respect for the man, but not enough to improve this pathetic excuse for an encyclopedic article. Seems like there could be a better process. If Wikipedia was about going to a website, pulling a handful of information and placing it between a bunch of original research, it wouldn't be what it is today. Regards, LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 19:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I felt that the result was more along the lines of "no consensus" ... bordering on delete. I second that only superficial changes have been made. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of "no concensus". It was a tie. And the Keep votes were based as follows:

• "... now that this third AfD has led to proper sourcing and expansion."
  • It has not been adequately sourced, and the addition of two sentences does not justify the claim of "expansion".
• "Notability isn't a problem. ...facts in the article are not outrageous, and can be sourced..." Also stated (emphasis mine) that it's reasonable to expect that additional references will "find their way onto the article in the years to come." Additional referencing an "easy problem to fix".
  • I've looked for additional references, as I'm sure many others have for these "facts", but I'm not finding anything and, obviously, no one else is either because there are no sources being added. If it's going to take "years" for this article to be brought up to standards, it needs to be deleted and recreated when possible by someone who cares enough about the article to do more than just fight to keep it in its current state. Lastly, if it was an easy fix, it wouldn't be months later with the addition of three references to one source.
• States that he's notable. References "sufficient for everything but the bio details".
  • One source is not sufficient for any article. If there's only one source to reference, what is the point of an encyclopedic article? Wikipedia is not meant to serve as a lead to other websites.
• "Clearly notable."
  • Notability was not the issue.
• "... to ensure that the debate just two weeks ago gets at least some sort of respect."
  • How noble.

Many of the keep votes weren't even based on the issue at hand. How this article managed to survive two previous AfDs with zero references AND that lack of reference not even be mentioned as a problem is beyond me. Is everyone actually reading this article before making your recommendation? Regardless, hopefully this discussion goes somewhere, otherwise I'm taking it to review. LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Superficial changes" were addition of missing references, which was the reason of early "delete" votes. Since they addressed the concern, I consider them significant. A bit later I added one more phase (referenced) and deleted a dubious statement (about type A and type B uncertainties), because from what I know Eisenhart and Colle actually postulated combining them (1980) rather than "distinction", which has long beed done, since the very moment of understanding the difference between systematic and random uncertainties. I don't really care about this guy and I leaving this article in "barely survivable" state: he does have documentable achievements of reasonable impact on civilization, and it is not his fault that pokemon and pornstars have more exposure to random american public, including wikipedian tastes. `'mikka 22:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If it will make you happier, I may change the diagnosis to "no consensus", which will not change the state of the "non-deletedness" of the article. `'mikka 22:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted piece

The following part deleted:

The majority of Collé's research has been in the area of developing methods to accurately measure radioactivity. When radon was recognized as a public health problem, Collé led the effort at NIST to determine what the national radon measurement needs were and then to develop standard analysis methods and radon standards for instrument calibration. His methods for studying the atmospheric distribution of radon and other natural isotopes are used for atmospheric modeling and climate research.

This part is opinions, rather than bare facts from career, so references are a must. `'mikka 23:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ronald Collé. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070423210011/http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Curie/present.html to http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Curie/present.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701084500/http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Curie/certificates.html to http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Curie/certificates.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)