Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Callaway

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 11:42, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Callaway

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Academic with a moderate citation record (h-factor 33 & 4.8K cites), below normal in his area for WP:NPROF. No major awards. I cannot verify his current or prior position, plus there are connected sock issues. While there are some earlier papers in solid-state physics claimed to be by this scientist I cannot verify it is the same person. Fails WP:NPROF, WP:SIGCOV , WP:V at the very least. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear case of WP:PROMOTION of a non-notable scientist. Tercer (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm seeing some progress towards NPROF, but in a high citation field, and I think it falls a bit short. The long-standing abuse and ref-spamming of Wikipedia makes me less inclined to a charitable point of view. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agree with others that self-promotion merits a sharper response when notability is borderline.--Srleffler (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of the tone of the article, incontrovertibly to the participants of his field, Callaway could not be declared to lack notability.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If that were the case, you would think that at least one of them would have written something about him or his work.--Srleffler (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Created by Cuzkatzimhut (no independent sources found for any of these original claims -- apparently all from Callaway's personal website). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added multiple secondary refs to the page. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand what are secondary references. What you added are merely citations to his work. Tercer (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independant refs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear fail of WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; normally we give academics a fair degree of latitude to state their own background, and use institutional websites as reasonable sources, despite their being primary. But this requires honesty. Since this guy is ~~certainly~~ probably not the author of the 1980's papers, and the biography at mobility.ccny.cuny.edu/Callaway is at a location not used for ccny.cuny staff profiles in general, says very little about him, and is oddly formatted, there are a lot of red flags about this. I think we'd need sources independent of him to verify, and I can't find any. Elemimele (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Comment I'm striking my previous comment as I miscounted years. There is some evidence that he might have graduated from highschool around 1973, which would make it just about possible for him to have been publishing by 1979, the time of the earliest physics paper I can find. The strange domain name for his current website, and his strange status in the staff list at ccny ([1]) is perhaps consistent with a recently-retired professor, and there's no guarantee photos are recent. It's a bit odd his field has changed so much, and it's all a bit promotional, but that's not unknown amongst professors. Hard to tell. Elemimele (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These kinds of websites are common within CCNY research spaces, though they usually don't look this unprofessional. See Lia Krusin-Elbaum's website and Jack Martin's website. Many PIs opt to use Google Sites or Squarespace. The "mobility" subdomain lines up with his collaboration with Zimei Bu - it looks very similar (link). -- Recon rabbit 13:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is Bu's staff profile; this is Callaway. I've found nothing to verify the NYU faculty statement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Callaway is listed as associated with NYU in this paper.~~ Nevermind that, sorry. Though I trust it I can't imagine all will. I can say at least that Zimei Bu's name is on the name-plates of a few rooms in the CCNY Science Building, as much as that piece of OR gives you, but I've never seen Callaway's name anywhere. -- Recon rabbit 18:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you trust it an affiliation doesn't mean much. He could be a visiting researcher, a lab technician, or a "Non-Tax Levy POI" (whatever that means), as his university page claims. Tercer (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and salt), per nom rationale, a promotional article that endured (after 2008 prod by Deepfriedokra) because confirmed socks preserved it since the original 2008 uncited version.
9 Sep 2008 Created, uncited (note, no independent evidence found of NYU prof)

6 Oct 2008 first sock appears

11 Oct 2008 second sock appear

11 Oct 2008 third sock appears

11 Oct 2008 prodded by Deepfriedokra

11 Oct 2008 PROD removed by a sock

After a day of searching, I am unable to find a single independent source, the citation record is below normal for the field, and this article has endured almost two decades because of socking abuse. In addition to the sock farm noted in the nom, also connected to another sock farm (Pastalover). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added multiple secondary references to Callaway's work in three different major fields of study. His work in Lattice gauge theory alone is notable, but he also has notable work in QFT and protein dynamics. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You indicated journal articles where he is re-cited ... as others have mentioned, not at a high level for his field, and not enough to confer notability in a field where work is highly re-cited. I've restored the tags, and placed the CUNY staff profile. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which field? In physics his papers have a large number of citations. Many of our wikipedia articles are based on papers with fewer citations. His papers are called out by name. If that is not notability what is? Johnjbarton (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SIGCOV; you're doing original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't follow. I cited reliable sources. Why do you call that original research? Johnjbarton (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ Comment Callaway's work in lattice gauge theory, quantum triviality, and protein dynamics are cited by name in secondary sources. His work has hundreds of citations in multiple fields. The past history of this page including any dubious contributors is not relevant to WP:notability. Many jerks are notable. It is our job to correct the page to produce verifiable encyclopedic content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjbarton (talk • contribs) 16:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnjbarton, many physics academics have a few papers with > 100 cites, including assistant and associate professors. The bar has to be higher, and at AfD in his area it is typically > 45 & 8K cites if there are no awards. I would pass him if he had a major award, but there have been none -- no evidence of major peer recognition. That lack is very, very telling, it speaks to how his work has been recognized by his peers. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will accept your judgement on the comparison of citations to other professors. However, I don't think you need to run down this person to make your point. His work has been recognized by his peers. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked some of the references added to the page, and they had citations like The connection with classical mechanics (Callaway and Rahman 1982) arises on introducing a fictitious time variable [...] which simply uses the parenthetical citation style, and does not help us in establishing notability, since it does not tell how much credit Callaway deserves for making the connection. Do some of the added refs give more explicit description on Callaway's pioneering role on some field? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnjbarton, it not for us to try and build a case for what socks put in WP; it is only for us to build content once we have establishged notability, which seems very much not to have happened. —Quondum 18:15, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it seems to me that the page that socks built is being used at the primary source of information about notability. It seems to me that "kill the socks" is the real driving force rather than an suitable evaluation. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fair to default to deletion when there is not an obvious case of notability and there is a clear COI and no-one has succeeded in demonstrating notability. IMO, there is a grace period for establishing notability only while we discuss, with no obligation to try. —Quondum 00:30, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that "kill the socks" would not be a suitable reason for deletion, however given the history we need clear evidence of notability to keep this article. It can get no benefit of the doubt. As others have noted, it is not even clear that this person is or was a professor at CUNY. No one has yet presented evidence to that effect. I'll leave to others the analysis of whether the citations you found are enough, but note that most professors are not notable. Notability requires something more than being a typical professor with a typical number of citations to one's work. To be notable one must be a leader in their field; someone whose work has been influential.--Srleffler (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, But where will this evidence come from? The Wikipedia page we all think is far below par?

If you look at the affiliation lines on his many peer-reviewed publications you can see he was at CERN, Argonne, Los Alamos, Rockefeller University, Colorado State University, and New York University School of Medicine. I'm not claiming that any of this adds to notability, but a claim like "it is not even clear that this person is or was a professor at CUNY" is an unfounded implication based on suspicions which are based on socks editing that is ultimately just suspicions. Even if the conclusion is reasonable, the overall process seems driven by revenge rather than a well-informed evaluation.

In addition I think the criteria that actually matters is not "leader in their field; someone whose work has been influential" because every editor views the field and influence differently. I think the bar is much higher in practice and not clear from the guidelines. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The affiliation line in peer-reviewed papers means nothing. The journal simply takes your word for it. There's no checking whatsoever. A friend of mine even put once a joke affiliation whose initials spelled pussy, and it was accepted. Tercer (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what's your theory? Callaway wrote all these multiply cited peer reviewed papers some the multiple coauthors while living on the lam? I wonder if Wikipedia anonymity and common vandalism hasn't distorted our normal, healthy skepticism into a kind of paranoia. Rather than assuming the worst we can consider that Ldm1954's opening statement in favor of delete, "Academic with a moderate citation record (h-factor 33 & 4.8K cites), below normal in his area for WP:NPROF. No major awards.", is backed up by the simplest view. There is no reason to assume Callaway was a fraud just because someone took advantage of Wikipedia to over-cite his work. He did some good work, he doesn't make the cut. That's all we need to say. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Ldm1954 (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing Callaway of doing anything. I'm simply saying that if we want to claim that he was a professor somewhere we need a reliable source for that, and an affiliation in a paper is not that. Tercer (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Notability is severely in question; even his current position at CUNY is not listed as either 'professor' or 'laboratory director'. We have him as co-author of some papers, which is primary sourcing and no indication of his personal contribution; those papers are incredibly diverse without a common thread, strongly suggesting that he was in no way directly involved but managed to get has name associated with them, without doing any of the work, and the socking suggests that he really is about synthesizing his own notablility. Without secondary sources that describe his contributions, we have absolutely nothing. The thing about quantum triviality may have been a review of other work, not "work" in its own right, but I have not checked that. —Quondum 18:15, 4 September 2025 (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.