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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Wicks[edit]

Charles E. Wicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I feel somewhat bad putting this up for AfD as the edit history indicates this page was made and then later prepared into an obituary page by the individuals son. I originally put this up for AfD for appearing to not pass WP:PROF and it was subsequently deprodded without reason. I have since done a deeper dive into this individual to check and it seems he fails to pass WP:PROF as well as WP:BIO.

Arguments for WP:PROF Non-notability[edit]

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

• No. There is some confoundation here as there is another Charles E. Wicks^[1] who seems to be involved with the US geological survey who would pass WP:PROF (if he is also a professor) on this measure. However, for Charles E. Wicks the chemist^[2] he does not come close to meeting criteria 1 only having an h-score of 4 and 6 publications according to scopus, and google scholar backs this up. Although, he does have one book publication that has been cited over 700 times,^[3] but I do not believe a single book (though highly cited) is quite enough to pass C1, more so because the book is effectively a collection of physical properties of compounds. I do wonder if it's possible he does have more publications as it is stated he was involved in research for 37 years. Since most of this occured from the 60's onward I do wonder if they could be cataloged poorly.

2.The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

• No. He has won awards according to an old faculty page, but they all appear to be internal to oregon state university^[4] and thus don't meet this criteria. I wasn't able to find any other awards.

3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).

• No. No evidence of this that was elected to a major society.

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

• No. Does not seem to be the case, which would be expected due to his low publication count.

5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

• No. He was department chair for 17 years, but I couldn't find any mentions of this being a named chair. So, close, but not quite.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

• No. He seems to have only stayed in the chemical engineering department through his career and did not branch out.

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

• No. This does not seem to be the case. Though he seems really loved by his family and was really valued by the community in which he lived.^[5] However, this is the only mention of it in an obituary and it didn't seem to get news coverage. It, rather sadly doesn't count for criteria 7.

8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

• No. I did not see anything about him being an editor.

Other Comments[edit]

Honestly, I was hoping I could find something to save this page as... well idk this just weirdly pulled on my heart strings as the page was curated by his son. But, I just couldn't find anything notable both when I put up the PROD and now when I did a second and deeper dive.

Please share your thoughts, thanks! --Tautomers_{(T C)} 01:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination takes a lot of time and words to explain that the nominator doesn't really want to delete this page. And notice that all this text has resulted in the creation of another page to hold this discussion. By convention, we will not delete this discussion page, which will be kept visible in perpetuity. So, why then are we considering deleting the page in question, which is more encyclopedic, while retaining the discussion page which is just bureaucratic and of no general interest? It seems that the nominator thinks that there are rules which require us to do so. But we have a clear and fundamental policy which tells us what to do in such cases: "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". And the rule in question is, in any case, just a guideline which explicitly says that exceptions are possible.

For another recent, similar case, see Theodore Cohen. I deprodded that too and then, with others, took it to the main page as a respectable DYK which got over 2,500 views and no complaints. The encyclopedia was improved in that case, so why not this one too? Per policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Let's do that instead then. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks Andrew for sharing a recent example about a similar article, that's helpful to compare to as a reference point. I agree that that article was good to be kept because it not only met PROF standards, he also left a strong impact which was notified in multiple obituaries signifying his notability. With this article though, I did not see as extensive coverage, nor notability on PROF standards and as such I keep my vote as delete. It's great that you spruced up the article, but it still fails notability in my view, per my initial arguments. Additionally, while I feel bad about this article being deleted, I also do still think it should be deleted. Those two feelings can and do co-exist. I do not think the rules require us to delete the article. This is ultimately a consensus process, and one I have come to respect. If it is found worthy of being kept that will be great too. I'll be satisfied with whatever the consensus is. As a side note, I hope that you will address my concerns that I outlined on your talk page regarding approach to deprodding when you have the time, as I assume you have seen it based on your reply here. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 19:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Andrew and per nom's own statement "I do not think the rules require us to delete the article". Dr. Universe (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please don't mischaracterize what I say. While rules do not require articles to be deleted, I do still think this article should be deleted, per the analyses I have given and in respect information others have brought forward. If reasoning/evidence comes to light that causes my opinion to change, I'll update my vote in a comment accordingly. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 21:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The case of Theodore Cohen is hardly comparable. He was a distinguished chemist known his research, not for compiling other people's work into a book. (Having said that, I do wonder at the justification for putting a picture of Isaac Asimov in his article. Asimov was indeed very famous, but not for the trivial science that he published.) 700 citations for such a compilation is not particularly impressive. A more appropriate comparison is with Edwin C. Webb, who does not have a Wikiparticle, despite having been vice-chancellor (head) of a major Australian university in addition to his distinction as a scientist. The last (1992) printed version of Enzyme Nomenclature now has 441 citations, and this count ignores the many citations to the earlier editions. Likewise, his classic book Enzymes with Malcolm Dixon has accumulated too many citations to count, but probably more than 10000. Athel cb (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles are not created by deletion; see Edwin C. Webb to see how it's done. See also WP:WAX Andrew🐉(talk) 13:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well that's great; thank you. You created it today, after I wrote the above, so maybe my comment had a useful effect. However, it hardly affects the point, which is that 700 citations to a book published in 1963 is not very impressive (better than many, certainly, but nothing special). Athel cb (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:PROF is mostly geared to academics and scientists who are active today. How to apply it when the subject retired in 1987 is more equivocal; we need to think back to what citations were like in the pre-Internet days, for example. I think that Fundamentals of Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer [1] and Thermodynamic Properties of 65 Elements [2], though co-authored, add up to a "body of work" that suffices for wiki-notability. The former keeps being brought out in new editions (currently on its seventh, apparently, with Wicks credited on the first five), which suggests it's a bit of a standard. XOR'easter (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If you feel bad putting the article up for deletion, and it pulls on your heart strings, let's just keep it. NemesisAT (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep fails WP:NPROF#1 without major research awards or highly cited papers or obituaries, but I think one could (weakly) argue that he passes WP:NPROF#4 with the textbooks he authored. Another issue is the lack of any strong RS. --hroest 21:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not pass Academic notability guideline 1. His work is not majorly impactful in his field of study.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Johnpacklambert: I think that is well established, have you considered an argument based on WP:NPROF#4 as I advance above? --hroest 18:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. While there's little sign of WP:NPROF C1, I believe the WP:NPROF C4 case from the apparently fairly widely-used textbook. The other book is reasonably highly cited, and I think it saves this from being a WP:BLP1E. The article is in relatively poor shape, but as usual, WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Worthy academic, undoubtedly. Give more leeway to the historical over the currently working. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above Sahaib (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes Nprof c4 barely.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2021 (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.