Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
-4: Wachler and Phillips kept, Muncy and Wolter deleted
Line 13: Line 13:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rathinam College of Arts and Science,}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rathinam College of Arts and Science,}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Camelio}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Camelio}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Boxer Wachler}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Muncy}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Phillips}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Wolter}}

Revision as of 05:36, 16 July 2007

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Academics and educators. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Academics and educators|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Academics and educators.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Purge page cache watch

Please see WP:BIO for guidelines on the inclusion of biographical articles, WP:PROF for the widely-used proposed notability standard for academics. Other notability standards that may be of relevance include WP:SCIENCE, the notabilty guidelines for scientific research.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education for a general list of deletion debates related to education.

Academics and educators

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. Jaranda wat's sup 19:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Peratt

Anthony Peratt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was prodded on the grounds that it fails WP:PROF. I, too, believe it fails PROF, but think that its a close enough call that we should discuss it here. semper fictilis 22:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom; insufficiently notable. semper fictilis 22:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His research and name can be mentioned on the pages describing the subjects he researched. Notability does not "rub off" onto someone just because they found something notable, unless they did something notable to find that something notable (like Galileo or Columbus). NobutoraTakeda 22:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [1][reply]
with that policy, WP would be a kindergarten-level encyclopedia. 5 or 10 scientists, 5 or so explorers, possible 20 rock bands... The criterion you refuse to accept, "because they did something notable" is WP notability. But i shouldn't bite, today is your first day on WP. DGG (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable (added by user Onceonthisisland)
  • Keep lots of google hits for his books and his name; lots of hits in Google Scholar - passes WP:PROF. I note too that he has been in Wiki for three years and has edits from about 20 people - indicates notability. Springnuts 22:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ghits are not a good way to determine the notability of an academic. I think that many people have edited the article because there are a number of catastrophists who are active on Wikipedia trying to promote and advertise their ideas. They generally choose a few obscure academics whose ideas they like and blow them out-of-proportion. --Mainstream astronomy 23:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Peratt is not only an accomplished scientist,[2] but also a leader in the field of Plasma cosmology (Plasma Universe)[3], his academic book, Physics of the Plasma Universe has been reviewd in Astrophysics and space science, in Science, and in Sky and Telescope, and I'm sure he will be found to be notable by the 3000 professional engineers and scientists who are members of the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society who receive the journal Transactions on Plasma Science (in which he is am Associate Editor)[4], and by the several hundred scientists and engineers who share his view on Cosmology.[5] --Iantresman 23:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - and by the several hundred scientists and engineers who share his view on Cosmology.[6]. This is a gross misrepresentation of who has signed the open letter. Most of its signatories are Big Bang Busters with agendas ranging from Velikovsky to creationism. Such votes ought to be removed from consideration on the basis of his dishonesty. --Mainstream astronomy 01:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list shows 218 "Scientists and Engineers", excluding the original signatories. But you are correct that most of the people who signed their name, are not shown as either Scientists and Engineers (ie. 187 independent researchers, and 105 others). But my statement does appear to be accurate, and yours to be unsubstantiated and uncivil --Iantresman 02:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relying on the self-identification of scientists and engineers leads to some absurd characterizations. I see a member of the Creation Research Society identifying himself as a scientist/engineer. Oh, look! A scientist from The Noah's Ark Research Foundation, one from the US Department of Transportation, one from the Empirical Church, USA, and the glorious diploma mill Capital University for Integrative Medicine/California. This site is a parody of itself. --76.214.223.142 14:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
simply false, it requires being more notable than the average academic,and as you yourself say, he meets this. DGG (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the criteria for WP:PROF require more than being "above average." Peratt appears to be good at what he does, but he's no more notable than several of the guys down the hall from me. The stuff that Iantresman cites, for example, is normal for any professor at a Research-I university. Raymond Arritt 01:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it is perfectly possible that several of the guys down the hall from you may be notable. DGG (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's more likely that they aren't per the Copernican Principle. Wikipedia has articles on less than 1000 astronomers living and dead. A common estimate thrown around in the community is that there are something like 6000 astronomers alive on the planet today, and something like 20,000 astronomers who have kicked-the-bucket. We're talking about 4 out of every 100 astronomers who are notable enough to deserve an encyclopedia article. Even if we skew towards "recent-memory" inclusivity and assume that there are the same number of living and dead notable astronomical figures (highly unlikely, but we'll go with it), we're talking about one out of every twelve astronomers who are notable. Twelve just happens to be the size of a medium astronomy department, so Wikipedia right now is catching on average about one astronomer per medium-sized department. Therefore, your argument above is akin to arguing that Wikipedia is grossly unrepresentative of notable astronomers. I don't think that this is the case at all. --76.214.223.142 14:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see your point regarding the "Copernican principle." What in there specifically are you referring to? "The earth isn't the center of the universe" doesn't seem to apply. Peratt hasn't, to my knowledge, ever argued it is... Mgmirkin 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a better bet to assume you aren't special than to assume that you are. There was a recent article about the local application of this principle in The New York Times. --76.214.213.166 04:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I fail to see how your "statistical analysis" has any bearing on whether or not Peratt is notable. It's like saying, well, since we haven't included EVERYone, no one else should be added, ever, despite being notable. Seems to not quite make sense. Now, I'm not arguing that Peratt is more notable than others, or that competency=notability. However, he has contributed quite a bit or documented notable research to plasma physics & astronomy. Whether it's more than the "average" researcher, hard to say. Mgmirkin 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument was made by DGG that a few scientists down the hall were notable. However, as is pointed out below, it's more likely that a few scientists down the hall are not notable. If Peratt is really equivalent to "a scientist down the hall" then by the simple statistical argument he will likely not be notable. --76.214.213.166 04:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might also point out that it it seems to be the intent of many here to get "delete-happy." I tend toward being an 'inclusionist' rather than a 'deletionist.' If a topic is notable or a person is notable and people want to know more about the person or topic, it should be included. Keeping in mind that WP should be a NEUTRAL representation of people and things "out there" in the world. Mgmirkin 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peratt's views or others' views of Peratt should not automatically disqualify an article about him. IE, if someone has a problem with catastrophism and someone else uses Peratt to justify their viewpoint, that's not Peratt's fault, and he and/or his article should not be blamed or ostracized because of it. That's POV and agenda pushing (indirectly attacking an opponent's idea through unrelated or minimally related means). It would be like saying "Christians use the Big Bang to justify creationism, so we should remove the Big Bang article to undermine their Creationist position." That type of reasoning is ludicrous. I'm just saying that "agendas" should be weeded out. Mgmirkin 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do, however believe that the article should be NPOV, and any unsupported claims, or material not related directly to Peratt, his work, his notable/verified beliefs or accomplishments or discoveries should be removed from the article, and a better more comprehensive, more NEUTRAL article should be molded from the old one. Mgmirkin 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is troubling that Peratt's views keep coming up because I agree with you that they are totally irrelevant to this discussion. If anything I see a slight bias in application of this on the keep side with certain voters saying that we should strive to keep articles about unconventional ideas or accomodate those who are on the fringe by giving them a pass for WP:PROF. However, I think WP:FRINGE is the right way to think about this. The people advocating the "fringe" need to be subject to the same standards as those who advocate the mainstream. No more, no less. WP:NPOV should be applied fairly and equitably to all people and ideas. As I see it, the fringe automatically have a disadvantage because they are, by definition, marginal. However, it is not Wikipedia's place to right great wrongs such as this. --Nondistinguished 04:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Peratt is a figure in the specialty of "plasma cosmology" which is not necessarily regarded as mainstream, as an examination of the links in the article on him will show, and in the past those associated with this movement have aroused a considerable amount of possibly POV discussion on all sides. This presumably accounts for some of the comments in both directions expressed above. I want to reexamine his record systematically.
Some non-mainstream figures have in the past been considered important at AfD, based on the non-academic notability as shown by popular books, and press mentions; this seems not to be the case with him, so he must be evaluated on the basis of academic accomplishments.
The practice, since there is no formal "precedent" at AfD, in evaluation of academics is that all full professors at research Universities brought to AfD have always been considered notable, because of the work they have published and the peer reviews they have undergone--all instances where these have been investigated here in detail have been found notable, for at least the last 6 months. This correlates to the WP:PROF criterion of being highly respected by ones colleagues for ones body of work. If the astrophysicists at say, Princeton or CalTech regards someone as distinguished enough for their top academic rank, I think we'd accept their judgement. However, Peratt is not a professor at a research university. For some reason the bio in the article is somewhat sketchy: a full one on the website of IEEE is at [7]; (I cannot account for why it was not included in the article; we normally regard information from such sources as reliable for factual career details unless there is evidence to the contrary) He is a scientist at Los Alamos, and his previous career has been there and at Livermore; it is difficult to correlate positions at these labs with academic ranks, so this cannot be used as a preliminary criterion.
So we go by the publications, honors and awards. Being the editor-in-chief of a major peer-reviewed journal has been held highly notable--this are the prestige positions for the most distinguished; IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is an important mainstream journal from the most important scientific society in the general field of electrical engineering and related subjects. But he is he is not editor in chief, but rather one of the 15 associate editors. This by itself has not always been considered enough for notability, though sometimes it has been, in connection with other factors. He holds several awards as listed on that page, but no really major honors. Publications are judged by citations. Using WebofScience, as customary, I find he has 69 publications included there, not all of them peer-reviewed papers--about half seem short comments or editorials. However, they are not highly cited: the five most cited are cited 24, 18, 18, 18, 17 times He has 9 papers cited 10 or more times, for an h index of 9, not particularly impressive. However, he has two papers in Physical Review Letters, the very most distinguished physics journal.
On balance, this is borderline. The associate editorship is almost enough for notability, the publications are relatively weak. Put together I would call it a Weak Keep.
I want to add a word about possible prejudice: I have such high respect for the scientific establishment that I have devoted my career to its service. But this does not diminish the importance of the non-mainstream people for a comprehensive encyclopedia, for by confrontation with these views, progress is made. I am, frankly, very suspicious of the attempts of those in any establishment to exclude those without: I call it negative COI. I do not think this article should have been nominated for deletion. DGG (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis is good, DGG, up until the last paragraph. I think you are doing some defending of the marginalized, perhaps in the capacity as a devil's advocate or a fan of the underdog. This is not a good rationale, however. There are plenty of non-mainstream advocates that are notable (e.g. Halton Arp, Hannes Alfven, Hermann Bondi, William Tifft, Jayant Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge) who deserve encyclopedia articles. The accusations of negative COI are unwarranted, otherwise the rest of these scientists would be here at AfD too. Peratt just happens to be one of the second tier scientists with an interest in non-standard cosmology who is simply not very notable and he only has an article because there is a "positive" COI at work by people fighting mainstream cosmology here at Wikipedia. Peratt hasn't proposed any new ideas in cosmology since his toilet swirl galaxies (Rocky Kolb's description, not mine). Indeed, the only claim of notablity Peratt has is that he advocates a rather marginalized view. Pretend that the guy didn't advocate such views, would you be arguing for weak keep then? --76.214.223.142 14:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I did two things, & I separated them. I analyzed, and then I stated my conclusions. My analysis is intended to provide data to be helpful to the discussion, regardless of the conclusion people reach from it. I think my data accurate, & I will defend the method and the criteria. But my conclusion is only my own evaluation overall, and each of us will have his own. I do not mean to imply that if you accept the analysis you should accept the conclusion. I separately state the factors for the conclusion--for people to follow or not as their independent judgement thinks best. (& when I say weak, I mean that I put forward the conclusion as an hypothesis, & regard the alternative as possible also--I think others use it that way as well.)
But in answer to the question, I say freely that I have a strong personal bias against marginalized scientific views. I don't want my bias to be reflected in WP-- I therefore deliberately counter this bias in my evaluation--I consider that is what NPOV means. Others think differently. AfD is for consensus, and I accept the results of it. To obtain good consensus, the different views should be expressed so that those who may not have strong views on the matter can see the range of reasonable opinions. When I think an article unsupportable, I say delete. When I think it so unsupportable as to be obviously, a speedy delete or a prod, I do that. I deleted a speedy for an academic yesterday, and nominated another for speedy, and several for prod. . Beyond that, you may follow my reasoning or not--just as with everyone else's reasoning.DGG (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well put. Even-handedness is appreciated. Awareness of bias is the first step to adopting a neutral point of view. If we can't perceive our own biases, we can't keep them from coloring our opinions or expressions on WP. Took me a while to learn that one. But I think I have, finally. Mgmirkin 01:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, I tend to think, as you appear to, that all voices should have a certain say in things on WP, so long as they're presented neutrally. I'll grant that's sometimes hard for people who come from a particular POV to write about it NEUTRALLY. But the point being, if we WP:ASSUME, everyone has a right to exist on WP to some extent. Granted, the material should be presented evenhandedly, but thats' what good editing is about. Not promoting a POV, or suppressing a POV because you disagree with it (in itself a POV-pushing violation, which I think happens more frequently on WP than is preferred or proper). Hope that made sense? Mgmirkin 01:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All voices do NOT deserve a say at Wikipedia. People have a right to contribute to Wikipedia, but unless the voice they are contributing is verifiable and notable, it does not deserve a place at Wikipedia. That's why Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Nondistinguished 04:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question WP:PROF mentions the alternate criterion: the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor. In using this, what group of academics do we take the average of? If we take the average of all college instructors, including instructors at 2 -year colleges, people at primarily teaching institutions, and people near the beginning of their careers, then according to DGG's count, Peratt has published more than average. If we take the average of full professors at good research universities he has published less than average. Cardamon 00:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; I've raised this question on the Talk page for WP:PROF. A strict application of "more notable than average" would give us articles on 49.999% of all college instructors, which is plainly unwarranted. Raymond Arritt 01:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously if one uses it in too broad or too narrow a sense it becomes meaningless--the way I use it is of tenure track faculty at research universities--which more of less comes out to full professors vs associate and assistant professors, in US terms. this matches the results of afds in general, where very few US associate or assistant professors have been held notable, and almost all full ones at Research universities have. In the UK its a little different, because Professor there is only used of the equivalent of US/Caanadian heads of department. Senior Readers, the next rank down, have often but not always been held notable. (an alternative way, which gets about the same result, is all full professors at US universities and colleges, in which case the ones at research universities are the upper third or so. DGG (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Peratt comes close to the level of "full professor". If application of WP:PROF is really heading in the direction as you say it is, then this may very well be the death-blow to claims for his notability. --Nondistinguished 04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'delete per comments by nom and 76.214 among other reasons. The best test for writing an article about any person is whether there are reliable sources that are about the person (as described at WP:N,WP:BIO and relevant to this case WP:PROF). There are no reliable sources about Peratt, only about his work. It might make sense to merge some of the information here to other articles. JoshuaZ 15:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the "United States Department of Energy Distinguished Performance Award, 1987, 1999; IEEE Distinguished Lecturer Award" as shown by the previous link as required by WP:PROF Corpx 17:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of what the "United States Department of Energy Distinguished Performance Award" is or how difficult it is to get it? For example, hundreds of scientists won the award from LANL in 2002: [8]. Los Alamos gives out this award like candy while Argonne, for example, usually gives only about half-a-dozen or so per year. The IEEE doesn't even recognize the "Distinguished Lecturer Award" as being worth listing and, in fact, Peratt is not listed as having any award from them, despite the fact that they list hundreds of award recipients. [9]. Almost anyone can trump up a "dubious distinction" award. Does every National Merit Scholar deserve an article? Surely not. --Nondistinguished 19:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Nondistinguished (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bucketsofg 02:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, IEEE does have a page about Distinguished lecturers, but it doesnt list the recipients. I searched around for other winners of this award in 1999 and couldnt find anyone else. Corpx 01:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every member-society of IEEE is allowed to choose their distinguished lecturer each year. Often the boards choose the editors of the particular society's transactions. Not a particularly meaningful "award" in that case. --Nondistinguished 16:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the books that he has authored? Dont you think they give notability for him as an academic? Corpx 01:36, 18 July
  • No, they don't. These books range from obscure texts to compilations of papers, nothing rising to the notoriety described in WP:BK. Publishing books in scientific fields is not considered the crowning academic acheivement: writing well-cited papers is what distinguishes them. Since these books are not themselves notable, it is hard to see how the author of these books can gain notability from them. --Nondistinguished 19:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see anything that distinguishes Prof. Peratt from the great mainstream of (non-notable) professors, per WP:PROF. I'm sure he's smart and has great theories that he's working on proving, but so does every other professor. Carlossuarez46 20:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with above - not clear evidence that subject passes WP:PROF. Eusebeus 21:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No clear evidence of notability. BTW - The research of pertoglyphs does not help to establish his credentials as a notable cosmologist. --EMS | Talk 22:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - accomplished senior scientist, as indicated, puts him near the borderline, but his plasma cosmology work has led to some additional (popular) notability - a check on Amazon shows that he's referred to in some other books. Also, I'm not certain that WP:PROF gives a fair shake to non-academic scientists. Hal peridol 00:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. I just don't think he passes WP:PROF. Douglasmtaylor 00:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Is he more notable than the average professor? I can't tell from the article as it now reads. Bearian 12:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that circular logic won't dictate whether or not this article is kept. IE, the WP article doesn't in itself give notability, so I'm not sure why we're looking at the article itself to try to determine if he's notable. Hal Peridol's comments above at least try to quantify the issue somewhat. IE, references by other authors, etc. Didn't he author a textbook on plasma physics at one point (IE, he knows his stuff)? Can't find a citation, though, don't have enough time ATM... So, I guess I'll withdraw that for the moment. Though of course authorship doesn't necessarily equate to notability either, as others have said. Mgmirkin 01:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of multiple non-trivial references covering the subject. Burntsauce 17:37, 20 July 2007 (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.
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. Jaranda wat's sup 04:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Ponce Silén

Carlos Ponce Silén (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Alan Liefting 23:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - he seems borderline non-notable. He's mentioned in a few reliable sources, like this, but not in a personal context. Maybe merge to his NGO articles? --Haemo 23:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, seams notable enough.Callelinea 03:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I agree with Haemo that this is borderline but I think a short separate article is better than a merge in this case since the article could be relevant to several articles and it is better to keep the information on the individual in one single place. -- DS1953 talk 17:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Little presence on the internet. No Spanish Wikipedia article FWIW. On the other hand, seems to have collaborated with Amnesty, the UN, etc. From what info is available, Mr Ponce Silén has credentials comparable to scores of people I know personally - and I wouldn't put any of those people on Wikipedia. A very borderline case...--Targeman 00:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - seems this is on the borderline since other than the nominator, we're all a little on the fence here. :-) So why I land weakly on this side: there's no indication that any of his NGOs are notable, what they've done etc. If more of that information were available this could be a keeper, if it just doesn't exist because the NGOs are really not notable, then delete is the right way to go. Carlossuarez46 01:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject does not really pass the notability standard. As an aside, who sets up 27 NGOs ? That seems a suspiciously high number. Eusebeus 21:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources. A UN press release isn't sufficient -- Whpq 21:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Here is the best luck I had searching for him in Google news. A cluster of major U.S. newspaper articles in June 2004 mentioning him by name, one from June 2006 quoting him (the hit on the first search page is just some press release, I think, but it's also on page 7 from the Miami Herald and on page 9 from Agence France Presse), and some false positives for entertainers and sports figures with similar names. That doesn't seem like quite enough press for someone truly notable for this sort of activity. —David Eppstein 21:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Whpq and David Eppstein. These sources are not "reliable" sources to establish his notability, and he would have more credible sources with information about him were he more notable. bwowen talk•contribs 22:25, 19 July 2007 (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.
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. Nearly every keep was from a single-purpose account, and the evidence against this article is overwhelming. I will salt if needed. --Golbez 23:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California University of Technology

California University of Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is a spam. This "university" does not have a .edu address, the article has been created by a single person [10] who only edited this article [11]. A WHOIS reveals that the name is registered with Go Daddy [12] and there are two websites hosted at the same IP (66.199.247.26, vickersfinancial.com and caluniversity.com) Tony 19:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Institution appears to be non-accredited and non-notable. Several of the Google hits are obviously erroneous references to CalTech and many more are run of the mill listings of institutions with no quality checks. It's quite "scammy" looking to me and doesn't appear to meet the bar of notability at all. --ElKevbo 19:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, are you telling me my acceptance letter from CalU won't work at CalTech? At least I can take my Mississippi Institute of Technology admission letter to Cambridge, Mass., yes? Joe 07:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be a scam university. Definitely doesn't meet notability standards. Bart133 (t) (c) 20:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't help but remember that diploma mills and other scams can be notable through notoriety (or can become notable that way...). This outfit seems to have hired consultants to help set it up, including http://www.neted.com/ (domain name is the same as the name of the contributor who edited this article) and SchoolBuilderPlus. Not all diploma mills invest that much... Maybe those consultants should become subjects for articles (wink).--orlady 23:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added: This outfit has been investing heavily in PR. For example, see http://www.prleap.com/pr/69289/ --orlady 23:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fictions contrived by men take more before we consider then notable.--Buridan 00:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I am currently enrolled in this school in my 3rd semester of classes. This is a newly started school, approved by the BPPVE but not yet accredited. It is not a degree mill or a pay for paper school - it is a legitimate school working towards being accredited. Their office is located in Diamond Bar, CA right next to the University of Phoenix there. There is no need to delete an article for a school that exists.--Fenixmagic 15:40, 17 July 2007 (PDT) — Fenixmagic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • DO NOT DELETE Do not delete this entry. I am currently enrolled in the MBA program. Being a software professional,I have taken online courses at other schools, but my experience so far with this university is extraordinary. They have built interactive online learning guides which are not common and a user friendly learning system. I was given complete training on using the system plus the faculty are easily accessible and helpful. Moreover, My councelor advised me clearly on the status of school, invited me for a visit, introduced me to the Academic Dean who also guided me on my academic track. I am currently in term 5 in Org Development and HRM. They have used modern technologies in their Learning Management System and in their elearning content which are highly noteworthy.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Technopreneur (talk • contribs) 03:33, July 18, 2007— Technopreneur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • DO NOT DELETE I'm right there with the other students on this one. I'm a DBA student currently enrolled at the university, and my four to five hours of homework each week are a testament to the fact that this is no diploma mill. Because of my technology background, I have worked in several post-secondary institutions. At my level, I'm not concerned with accreditation. It is a 'club' who, like any club is subject to its own politics and interests. A big limiting factor of accreditation is that it's not innovative and schools who want to innovate suffer like anything modern in a rule based system. I chose this school because I got a chance to see the curriculum, learning guides, LMS (you can just request to review a course on their website) and faculty lists. Their complete transparency was enough to allow me to make an informed choice. Plus, I went through the scholarship qualification process and was able to reduce my tuition. Honestly, you can't beat the price anywhere. The classes are application based (a key factor in my decision to do DBA rather than PhD. And what's with the whole 'can't transfer' bit? Who cares if the credits transfer when you actually plan to complete the whole degree at that school? Just my $.02.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Autodafey (talk • contribs) 04:37, July 18, 2007
Besides, there are some secondary resources referencing CalU faculty even in search engine research which means it does not fail the notability tests. These are articles by faculty, not advertising.
http://www.1888articles.com/learning-miracles-learning-at-the-speed-of-thought-0t251j3m5j.html
http://www.articlesbase.com/online-education-articles/how-the-interactive-learning-guide-benefits-an-online-education-149461.html
http://sg.sun.com/sunnews/press/2006/13mar_a.htmlAutodafey 09:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)— Autodafey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Those are most certainly not peer reviewed articles; the third "article" is in fact a press release. In fact, I don't see evidence that these "articles" were published in any venue. They appear to be pure advertising. --ElKevbo 12:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ElKevbo, but would not call those "articles." Rather, they are "promotional materials disseminated via the internet." DELETE. If this school should demonstrate notability in the future, then it can have an article. --orlady 13:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • DO NOT DELETE We received the temporary approval from BPPVE in mid-2005, which was upgraded to a permanent approval just last month. We are yet to receive the certificate of permanent approval, which is the reason why the link on the website was defunct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caluniversity (talk • contribs) — Caluniversity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. Non-notable. Press releases, advertising, and promotional material on free sites does not give notability. PrimeHunter 14:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. I am also curious as to why so many new usernames are commenting here...  hmwith  talk 23:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI only read and researched resources here before, I never had a reason to comment until now.Autodafey 23:56, 18 July 2007 (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.
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 due to lack of notability and reliable sources. ugen64 05:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Renihan

James Renihan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable baptist minister. Co-authored an obscure book and is an associate Professor at an obscure seminary. Re-creation of a speedily-deleted article. johnpseudo 21:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Renihan is the dean of a program of study at a fully accredited (both regionally and ATS) seminary. Sure, he's not Al Mohler but he's worth a stub at least.Eugeneacurry 22:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 308 hits on Yahoo, most coming from Baptist sources. Fails WP:N. Blueboy96 22:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, the article hadn't been edited since 1 March 2007 when it was created, if this isn't going to be expanded then it may as well be deleted. Darrenhusted 22:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, he is a published author (whose book is sold at Target) A Dean and Associate Professor at a College. He is notable. Callelinea 23:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. First of all, he did not write the book. This is a notable book written in 1752 by Benjamin Beddome. He wrote an introduction to a new edition! Second, being an associate professor is no claim to notability - most universities have hundreds. Third, there are no reliable independent non-trivial third party sources talking about him specifically. The only sources I find are talking about the book, which, again, he did not write. (Edited because I got the date wrong. Still 250 years ago. )--Charlene 00:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see why Westminster Seminary West is an obscure seminary, but this definitely doesn't pass the notability test for academics. Nyttend 01:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete' this is simply not a notable body of work, regardless of the semiary. DGG (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this is not his only book--I had some doubts, since it seems a respectable seminary. So I double checked OCLC, & added the 4 or 5 others. But except for his devotional book, they are held only in a handful of specialized libraries. Still not a notable body of work. DGG (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as notable, although I'd have to disagree with any grad of Trinity. Bearian 23:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As an author of several books, Renihan has some notability, even though his belief system is probably very different from mine. A specialized topic doesn't make an article non-notable. In fact, articles on specialized topics should receive an "expert-subject" tag before deletion is considered. Finally, Wikipedia permits articles of different sizes depending on their notability. A small article on a slightly notable subject is appropriate. Valerius 01:33, 19 July 2007 (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.
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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 06:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rathinam College of Arts and Science

Rathinam College of Arts and Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nothing more than an advertisement. No assertion of notability made. I was thinking of speedying this one, but thought it would be better to discuss it. Mark Chovain 08:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanitisement, well wide of the notability mark. Blueboy96 12:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as an apparently accredited post-secondary institution (with a secondary education component as well). --Dhartung | Talk 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think it would be better to start over, if its ever re-created. Corpx 17:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If no one is willing to rewrite this in the wikipedia format, sourced and unbiased then I'd be happy to keep it (as i'm sure we all would). But in its present state it would be quicker to delete it and have it recreated and rewritten if so desired later on.WikipedianProlific(Talk) 16:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep now that it has been stubbidifed. Delete without prejudice to re-creation, as WikipedianProlific says. All post secondary institutions can and should have articles, but Google only shows directory listings for real existence, but no obvious non-trivial 3rd party sources. Better to start over. DGG (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)DGG (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plenty of Google News Archive results and I have tidied up the article, and created K.P.M. Trust to deal with the other schools that are part of this technology park. John Vandenberg 01:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Be wary of straight google-counts. Of the 21 hits that come up, most are trivial (e.g. Single line comments that someone at the college has released a magazine), and not coverage of the college itself. I'd use the gnews link you provide as more evidence that this does not have enough external coverage. Mark Chovain 01:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This, attended by the principal of Government College of Technology, is trivial? The point I am making is that there is a lot of direct links in English sources that can be used to expand the article. And of course there are all the sources that are not in English, and that dont appear in Google when you or I search. John Vandenberg 02:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said most were trivial, not all. As a side point, even the link you provided is not independent: It is taken entirely from a press release from the college. I admit, it's better than nothing, but I was hoping to see something a little more substantial when I saw someone claiming "plenty of Google News Archive results". Regardless, if it's going to be rewritten, it should be done from scratch. Mark Chovain 04:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide some evidence that it was a press release? The event was mentioned a day prior and The Hindu article says it was written by "Our Staff Reporter". Anyway, here is another, which describes a "Apoorva-05" event that was held at the college; this was also mentioned on the day of the event. Also, why should the article be rewritten from scratch? John Vandenberg 15:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the present stub seems an acceptable start, once some puffery is removed from the first (& only) paragraph. DGG (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2007 (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.
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. Peacent 03:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Camelio

Brian Camelio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail notability guidelines. NMChico24 22:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main thing to consider here is that he founded ArtistShare which is considered to be a very innovative new business model for music. He seems to be very well respected in his field and somewhat of an important figure (referred to as a post-modern Amhet Ertegun) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=aHkRoYzxmSnY&refer=muse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.165.224 (talk) — 64.131.165.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Founder Brian Camelio could be rightfully called a visionary, I'm proud that he's a member of the jazz faculty here at The New School for Jazz and Contemporary Music, NYC. Martin Mueller, Exec. Dir." - Clearly he is a person of note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.165.224 (talk)

  • Strong keep. Very notable. New School is one of the most famous music colleges in the U.S., and Camelio is notable for more things than his teaching position there. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 20:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article was pretty badly written; I've revised it a bit. It's better to revise than delete because deletion prevents any chance of improving the article, but improving the article doesn't necessarily prevent any chance of deletion. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 21:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think as far as his position at his school goes, he's generally unremarkable. But that combined with his creation of ArtistShare, that's enough for me to land on the side of keeping his article. Trusilver 21:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, seems to have some claims to notability, but not sure if this article could be expanded. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think he's notable for founding ArtistShare.e.g. --Dhartung | Talk 22:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable, as per Trusilver and Dhartung, but also still a mess, as per Tlogmer. Bearian 23:50, 15 July 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academics_and_educators&oldid=144941280"