Talk:Josh Willis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


CSD nomination[edit]

Please dont delete this page I can expand it. he has hundreds of papers in respected journals. Jinkinson (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you waiting for? Expand it. Be aware he still may not meet WP:ACADEMIC Fiddle Faddle 21:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The answer is that I was at the gym when I got the CSD notification and I just got back. Jinkinson (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know: does Willis meet WP:ACADEMIC?[edit]

  • WP:ACADEMIC is quite a long page. What criteria exactly do you think he meets? He seems to meet the WP:GNG guideline, so why is it important that he meets any part of WP:ACADEMIC? Technical 13 (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay then. I wasn't entirely sure whether he met any notability guidelines, so thanks for your assurance that he does. This is my first RFC, by the way, so I'm sorry if I am doing it wrong or something. Jinkinson (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't say he did pass WP:GNG, I said he seems to, which means only that at a quick glance there seems to be enough WP:RS to support an article. Whether or not he actually does would be at the discretion of the community if it was ever brought to WP:AfD. All I can say is that it would be declined for CSD:A7 or WP:BLPPROD if nominated. Technical 13 (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations for his work are 564, 297, 163, 155, 150, 123 ... Anyone who has published papers with that many citations is obviously influential in his subject and thus meets the basic principle of WP:PROF. I cannot imagine why it's been challenged--or, more precisely, i can't imagine it would have been challenged if he worked in any other field than climate change. . Since Project scientist for Jason 3 was present even in the version on Sept 7, nominating this for CSD seems to be without consideration of "indications of importance or significance" It was cited well enough to pass BLP Prod even then also. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to AfD: I think this discussion is better suited to WP:AFD, since discussion there will be asking the same questions, and if it looks like the subject isn't sufficiently notable, we'll need to have this discussion over there anyway. As it is, looking at the sources in the article now, I don't think Willis meets WP:GNG. He may meet WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria pt.2, if the American Geophysical Union Early Career Award counts as "highly prestigious"; I'd guess it doesn't but I'd be happy to be overruled by people who know that area of academia. If this were an AfD, I'd be !voting weak delete. —me_and 15:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not: Subject clearly over the bar for WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria pt.1. He has a ton of publications in good journals, and he's project scientist for an important satellite -- the latter post would make him notable in itself. Concur with DGG that this smells like a political campaign against climate science. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Having "a ton of publications" doesn't count; pt.1 states his impact must be "demonstrated by independent reliable sources", ie independent reliable sources must say they've had significant impact.
    I can't speak for anyone else, but my objections are based on policy, not politics. I'd never heard of Willis or his research until I was invited here by WP:FRS. @MarkBernstein: can you be more clear about what you think smells like a political campaign? I'm trying not to read that statement as an accusation of bad faith on the part of myself and Timtrent, but I can't see any other way of reading it.
    —me_and 16:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I object to being accused of running a political campaign. I don't even know who this chap is! I also don't much care. WHat I care about is whether an article on the bloke is suitable for retention, no more and no less. Fiddle Faddle 16:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is appears to be a leading scholar in his field, with a long list of peer-reviewed publications in top journals. He played a central role in a notable scientific debate. His position in JASON-3 might itself qualify in criteria 1,2, or 3. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • @me_and : The independent sources are the people who cite his papers. Just as we can judge if a publication provides substantial coverage when applying GNG, we can judge if the citations in a given case are enough to prove impact when using PROF. That's the invariable course at AfDs. The only people with such high publication levels who have even been challenged there in the last 5 years (except by people who did not know about the WP:PROF standard) are ones who work in controversial subject fields, or in fields that WPedians have a prejudice against, such as education. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will any of these news sources help? He seems to be quoted in many publications as an expert"

—Anne Delong (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date format[edit]

I was about to tag this article with {{Use mdy dates}} per WP:STRONGNAT, but the article currently is consistently using dmy dates. Is there any reason WP:STRONGNAT doesn't apply here? —me_and 16:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I lie: the article uses dmy in the citations, and mdy in the one place with a full date in the article proper. The question still stands, however. —me_and 16:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Josh Willis. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Josh_Willis&oldid=1212602711"