Talk:Jonathan Hey

message: moved from User talk:Wknight94#Jonathan Hey: I couldn't find an AfD debate for the article Jonathan Hey you deleted (22:18, 18 November 2006 Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Jonathan Hey" (WP:CSD#A7)). Concerning the intellectual input of his work to the DIKW subject I wonder if he's really not significant enough. Is there a chance to restore this article? Best regards, ThT 00:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for moving the article to Jonathan Hey. I revised the article, and hopefully it's ready now to go back to the main article space. Do you think so as well? ThT 05:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like you still need to re-order things.  Opening the article with "Jonathan Hey holds a 1st class Masters degree" and "...is a PhD candidate" is a sure way to get it nominated for deletion again.  Those aren't what make him notable, right?  If the notability is based on DIKW, you need to open the article with that.  Any subject that is of questionable notability needs to assert that notability as early in the article as possible.  You should also get the opinion of  since s/he first nominated it for deletion.  Good luck.  —Wknight94 (talk) 12:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: moved from User talk:Shunpiker#Jonathan Hey: This article you nominated for deletion has been revised here. Do you think it's ready now to go back to the main article space? See also: User talk:Wknight94#Jonathan Hey, User talk:ThT#Jonathan Hey. Best regards, ThT 23:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi, ThT. The article is more thorough now, but the reason that I nominated it for deletion is it is not at all clear what makes Mr. Hey "notable" according to Wikipedia's criteria. There's no indication that Mr. Hey is "well known and more published than an average college professor". But if you think it's worth bringing before a larger audience, feel free to move the article out of user space and I will nominate it for WP:AFD (rather than  "speedy deletion", as I did before). This involves a more thorough review by a larger number of people. I suspect they will reach the same conclusions that wknight94 and I have -- but it's up to you. Shunpiker 06:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for consideration. Well, I tried to describe the importance of Hey's research for the relative young discipline of information science. Maybe because I'm not a native speaker in English I failed in making that quite complicated matter clear enough. In the German Wikipedia there's a quality check for articles I couldn't find here. Could be a peer review the appropriate way to improve the article before considering WP:AFD? Meanwhile I'll move all the talks to the talk page of the article. ThT 20:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Has he accomplished anything notable, other than a study? Otherwise the article probably needs to expand on what makes that one study particularly notable. From my experience in the AfD process, Ph.D. candidates are generally not considered notable in their own right, and are unlikely to pass the average professor test. Is analystic a word? — RJH (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to describe the importance of the study more in detail, but maybe this needs a native speaker to make it clear. IMHO the prominent use of that study in the training program of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission makes him "a significant expert in his or her area" (average professor test). But it would help, if others see this in the same way. --ThT 17:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That helps a little. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision after [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion]]

message: posted: Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 2#Jonathan Hey. ThT 20:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has he accomplished anything notable, other than a study? Otherwise the article probably needs to expand on what makes that one study particularly notable. From my experience in the AfD process, Ph.D. candidates are generally not considered notable in their own right, and are unlikely to pass the average professor test. Is analystic a word? — RJH (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to describe the importance of the study more in detail, but maybe this needs a native speaker to make it clear. IMHO the prominent use of that study in the training program of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission makes him "a significant expert in his or her area" (average professor test). But it would help, if others see this in the same way. --ThT 17:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That helps a little. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for feedback|Request for feedback]]

message: copied from Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 2#Jonathan Hey (by ThT 08:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has he accomplished anything notable, other than a study? Otherwise the article probably needs to expand on what makes that one study particularly notable. From my experience in the AfD process, Ph.D. candidates are generally not considered notable in their own right, and are unlikely to pass the average professor test. Is analystic a word? — RJH (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to describe the importance of the study more in detail, but maybe this needs a native speaker to make it clear. IMHO the prominent use of that study in the training program of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission makes him "a significant expert in his or her area" (average professor test). But it would help, if others see this in the same way. --ThT 17:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That helps a little. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jonathan Hey|Jonathan Hey]] 

message: The article was proposed for deletion with this concern: "There are many really distinguished experts "in connecting the abstract concepts of knowledge management with other" interdisciplinary fields do not present in Wikipedia. Mr. Jonathan Hey (Ph.D. candidate?) has only few recent Proceedings papers, one report and one article, which are all cited in the article(since 2003) See also Google. His orginal contribution to the research seems to be not so orginal as are presented below. Summarizing, he is very far from notability yet."
The article has been undeleted by my request for the following reason: as I tried to explain earlier: I tried to describe the importance of the study more in detail, but maybe this needs a native speaker to make it clear. IMHO the prominent use of that study in the training program of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission makes him "a significant expert in his or her area" (average professor test). [...] --ThT 17:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed for deletion