Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip R. Bjork

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. (

Philip R. Bjork

Philip R. Bjork (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 can't find any reliable sources on google search. It is also a clear violation of

• Could you elaborate on why you think this article violates
  WP:BLP? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete per A7. No assertion of notability. "Professor" is not an assertion of notability. DarkAudit (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as actually, Google Books turns up many sources, noting for example that he is the "director of a museum". See also here, where he is listed as an "Important People in the Museum’s History" and one of only a few there to have a biography posted that notes, "Dr. Philip R. Bjork (Ph.D., University of Minnesota) was appointed Director in 1975." In terms of larger importance, please note here: The first indisputable remains of Iguanodon (Ornithischia: Ornithopoda) from North America: Iguanodon lakotaensis, sp. nov. David B. Weishampel and Philip R. Bjork, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 1989, 9(1):56-66. He is partially credited with a major discovery and the aforementioned essay is indeed cited elsewhere. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The guy found the first Iguanodon fossil in North America, surely that's notable? Sasata (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant GBooks and GScholar hits indicate significant contributions to field satisfying WP:PROF. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep well referenced article meeting all criteria for notablity.
  talk) 19:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Closing admin please note this article has been signifigantly improved, since it was put up for deletion.[1]
  talk) 19:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaur page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
• Delete, unless sources can be found to establish the basic facts of this person's life (when he was born, whether he's still alive, whether he was a tenured professor, and so forth) and to establish his notability. I'm turning up a few papers he wrote or contributed to—though neither their number nor the numbers of citations indicated by Google Scholar are very impressive—but absolutely no substantial treatment of the person himself him in
  GNG. Deor (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

when he was born? I don't think that is a requirment for notability.

talk) 19:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I see that the nominator has withdrawn his nomination; but since some respondents have advocated deletion, this AfD is not eligible for a

usual ARS crew have to say. Deor (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Please remember

WP:AGF. Your implication above is that you do not care what the "usual ARS crew" has to say, which is needlessly insulting to these editors. But even if you still want to assume bad faith on these editors' part, User:Sasata (an editor with whom I am not familiar but who has indeed worked hard on this article) is hardly part of some "crew" and says to keep. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and I have surely not agreed in every AfD in which we both participated and he also said to keep. And as far as anyone else who said to delete initially, one has removed his comments altogether and even the nominator has withdrawn. That makes at least four non-ARS regulars who have changed positions or said to keep. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Snow Keep as notability had been asserted and sourced and the subject of the BLP passes
  usual ARS crew" does not mean I have some sort of kneejerk response to opining a keep, as I actually do what I can to improve the encyclopedia. There's no need to wait for a non-ARS input if the concerns of the nominator have so heartily been addressed that even the nominator has withdrawn. Again and with respects, that suggestion seems to indicate that editors belonging to ARS are somehow second-class citizens and that their opinions do not matter. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

OK, I'll bite. Exactly which criteria of

WP:PROF are met here? I'm not seeing any at all; nor have I found any sources that might back up any claim to satisfy any. Deor (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

sure: "director of the Museum of Geology at South Dakota School of Mines " shows him an acknowledged expert in his subject who has made significant impact. .. Discovering multiple species also shows that DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) To Deor: most telling is

Wikipedia:BIO#Academics

stating "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources (emphasis mine). Even were they the only sources available, primary sources could be used to source notability for an Academic. However and thankfully, secondary sources have been provided.

Even more interesting is the text of

WP:PROF

, I note

1. "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Discovering dinosaurs that had never been know to have esisted in the Americas kinda seems like a significant impact to his field. Such discovery has been sourced.
2. "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." Discovering dinosaurs that had never been know to have esisted in the Americas has a significant impact on how his field is taught at academic institutions. His discovery is cause for existing books to require being re-written and course sylibi to be changed.
3. "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society" Perhaps it might be argued that serving as director of the Museum of Geology at South Dakota School of Mines and Technology is not major, however respected that position might be... but I can accept that it is indeed major and influential.
4. "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" Again, discovering dinosaurs that had never been know to have existed in the Americas kinda seems like a significant impact even outside his field, as indicated by the provided news articles.

I applaud the work done to the article by others and the sources added.

WP:BIOguidelines because of the nature of the "world of ideas". I suggest it be read in detail by any opining herein. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, but you're not very convincing. Has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources—only 14 citations for the Iguanodon paper hardly suggest "a significant impact to his field", and as for "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", there are no sources at at all in evidence that attest to any significant impact. With regard to your points 2, 3, and 4, I rather doubt that you yourself believe that Bjork "made a significant impact in the area of higher education", "held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution" (I've yet to see any evidence that he even taught at SDSM), or "made substantial impact outside academia". Such obvious overreaching and misrepresentation of accomplishments does little service to either the article's subject or your argument. Deor (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then we might agree to disagree, as guideline's allowing latitude in the cases of Academics is to me very clear. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in addendum, I see no claim in the article that he taught at SDSM, only that he was director of the Museum of Geology at South Dakota School of Mines and Technology... and THAT is sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep.
  WP:PROF Either #1: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." or #6: "director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university)". The cited sources, showing Mr. Bjork has described several species or genera of prehistoric animals, and these works have been cited in later works, also satisfies me. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clear impact on discipline. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep! The cases above are quite convincing. Dream Focus 03:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Definitely meets Wikipedia's notability standard of
  WP:PROF. Laurinavicius (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - meets
  WP:PROF, and is thus notable. Cocytus [»talk«] 05:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Withdraw The article has improved a lot since I nominated this article for deletion. December21st2012Freak (talk) 05:14, 30 November 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.