Jgrudin

Proposed deletion of William Paul Jones

Hello, Jgrudin,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Nsk92 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I’ve proposed an article that you started, William Paul Jones, for deletion because it meets one of the relevant criterion.The particular issue can be located in the notice, that is now-visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to prevent the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click Publish Changes button.

But, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the raised issues. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Nsk92}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Nsk92 (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nsk92: Hello Nsk92. I have added to Talk pages before but not replied to a Talk message and hope I do this correctly. I will repeat some of this on the Talk page of the entry you propose deleting. I plan to edit the page and remove the deletion recommendation for now. The topic of "personal information management" is significant and growing. Jones was principal organizer of an NSF workshop on the topic in 2005, a link to which (http://pim.ischool.washington.edu/pim05home.htm) I will add, and his 2006 book continues to be cited more every year than subsequent books and articles by people Wikipedia recognizes primarily for work in this area. Similarly, his first ARIST (Annual Review of Information Science and Technology) survey with several hundred citations continues to be cited more every year than a subsequent ARIST survey with the same title by another recognized leader. This is strong evidence of his influence. My effort is motivated by the fact that we both worked at MCC in the 80s he was already focused on it, evidenced in his published work on implementing ideas of Vannevar Bush. I did not work on it with him but I reviewed some of his book manuscripts a decade or more later as our paths continued to cross. Jgrudin (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. You are, of course, free to remove the PROD tag at any time. I also suggest that you read closely the WP:PROF guideline to see what kind of evidence is needed for demonstrating academic notability in a Wikipedia article. In general, having organized a workshop does not count, nor does an argument that his paper is cited more than somebody else's paper on a similar topic. For citability, you'd need to show high citability, either in terms of high h-index or particularly high citability of several specific publications. That can be usually done by including a link to the relevant GoogleScholar search in the External links section of the article. In this case, the standard GoogleScholar search for his name[1] does not seem to produce any citations of his work. This result may be due to the fact that he does not list himself as "William Paul Jones" in his publications, but rather lists his name in a different way. If that's the case, you'd have to figute out how to configure a GoogleScholar search appropriately to get citations of his publications. Another (or concurrent) way to proceed would be to include links to more published reviews of his work (right now only such review by David Elsweile is included as a ref), or to include references to some publications where his work is analyzed and discussed in some detail rather than just briefly mentioned. Nsk92 (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nsk92: Hi again, thanks for the rapid reply,

Regarding the references, I noticed the GS issue. I don't know if there is a way to send you an image or form, but using Publish or Perish Google Scholar search I entered William Jones and under title "personal information management" and got 30 of his publications. First was his ARIST article with 578 citations, followed by his first book with 337 citations, and two Communications of the ACM articles and a First Monday article with over 100 citations. I haven't used GoogleScholar search directly. The two researchers in this field who cited Jones as "highly influential" in their book published subsequently (attracting fewer citations than Jones's original today) have Wikipedia pages. It seems odd this one is challenged but I realize due diligence is required. His work was the subject of a New York Times article that preceded the workshop which would only be of possible significance because it preceded the organization of the field but I didn't include it. His isn't my field, should I contact others in it to see if they want to support it? Jgrudin (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I have added a filtered GoogleScholar search link to the article. The citation results there are already sufficiently high to indicate notability in the sense of WP:PROF#C1. If you have a link/reference to the New York Times article regarding his work that you mention above, please add it to the article. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nsk92: NYT article added, a long title but pretty nice article back when the recovery from the Internet bubble collapse was getting going. Thanks for the help. I have edited but not created pages before. With your citation information and now a few external sources (article, review, and quotation from subsequent book) I removed the "primary sources" warning. Others added to the page and some may continue. It's a good outcome. He is the, or one of the, first out, most cited, and his books are intensely thought through, far from just popular treatments, that can continue to be relied upon. I'm glad to be done with this. Jgrudin (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I am not going to restore the tag, but someone else might, and you should keep that in mind. The issue with the way the article is currently written is that most items in the References section are Jones' own publications (7 out of 13). In general that's not the best practice for WP articles since they are supposed to primarily rely on independent (from the subject of the article) secondary sources. So it is better to create a separate "Selected publications" section in the article and list his most important publications there. And in the main text of the article itself, in places where these publications are mentioned, to the extent possible reference them to some other sources discussing or even just mentioning those publications. That's the preferred way of structuring a WP article about an academic. I did add three extra third-party references (apart from the NYT article): a 2005 Seattle Times article about his project, another published review of his book, and a NAPO ref. I don't think the article now is in danger of deletion, but still it would be better to reformat it along the lines described above. Nsk92 (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nsk92: I'm impressed, I was aware of the Seattle Times piece but focused on the NYT , but I didn't find the review and other source you did. Moving the two articles to the end does read better. Jgrudin (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve William Paul Jones

Hello, Jgrudin,

Thank you for creating William Paul Jones.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please address the issues mentioned in the article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Path slopu}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

PATH SLOPU 15:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Path slopu: Hello Path slopu,

Thanks for your attention. I am not experienced with this. Perhaps I should have added to the Talk page that a neutral Wikipedia editor worked on this and made additions and felt it was now a good page; that editor included the Google Scholar citation page and an external review of Jones' book. I will work on your points about organization. Jgrudin (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Path slopu: @Nsk92: Hello editors, I am still figuring this out. I'm not sure whether to insert the expanded version with codenowiki nowikicode brackets that I see here but I will assume not. Your comments are concatenated so I will assume that you see each other's and will see if I can reply to you both. I have added to the Talk page, which I did not realize I should do after the exchange with Nsk92.

In any case, this is reworked to address issues raised. This short article is now in sections and gets straight to the point. I found a Wikipedia page with several contributors over several years started about 10 years ago , which I was unaware of and did not contribute to, which covers one of Jones's early systems (and singles him out). This with his better-documented publication record and 7 patents (not previously noted) strengthens the case. I'm not sure where neutrality was contested, it is a factual account with few claims other than that he was a pioneer, which is supported by his five books, patents, inaugural annual review chapter, and early NSF-sponsored workshop in which he led an illustrious group of organizers (most with Wikipedia pages) -- that workshop is the one event in all of this I was involved with.

I hope this meets with your approval and the flags can be taken down.

Jgrudin (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Path slopu: @Nsk92: Hello again editors, with no disagreement regarding the points made above and having noted that one of you felt the article was OK before a significant effort to improve it further, I am taking down the flags. I'd have rather you took them down or made a case for leaving some up, but the decidedly improved organization, the finding of a preexisting Wikipedia page mentioning Jones and some of his work, and a few additional supporting materials, and no response to my comments here and on the article Talk page seems to merit moving forward. Jgrudin (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Jgrudin! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Is there a policy on the systematic removal of history and talk?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Jgrudin! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Follow-up to Is there a policy on the systematic removal of history and talk?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)