Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Jones (political scientist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Userfy and delete. Moving to User:Adam63/Adam Jones (political scientist). Cúchullain t/c 05:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Jones (political scientist)

Adam Jones (political scientist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Entire article is WP:COI and WP:AUTO violation by Adam63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). If the subject passed WP:NN the entire thing needs a rewrite anyway. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 13:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: COI noticeboard discussion — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 13:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. An associate professor A research fellow's résumé with no reliable sources which might establish Wikipedia-calibre notability. — Athænara ✉ 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:AUTO provides that biographies should not be written by their subject. "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by the community." EdJohnston 14:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per Athaenara. Shame though because with a little work and adherence to policy it could be a good article. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy or delete, resume. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Userify. For all I know he may be, or become, notable; and if so we'll want this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as currently reduced. I do not think he is necessarily a notable academic. He is about to be an associate professor, but not at a research university, and associate professors are not all notable--and not all of his work appears to be scholarly. But I think he is notable as an author and an activist. The number of books are sufficient, and none of them are self published. If he were not an academic, but merely a non-academic writer who had published as much and received as good reviews, he would be included without question. But I understand the feeling that it could be deleted. I and others have already cut down much of the self-praise and puffery that contaminated the article. There is, as noticed, a good way to go. I have just reduced the article to an appropriate size, somewhat longer than a stub, and citing each item only once. COI means the material should not necessarily be taken at face value, of course, and further editing should be done. I think it has now been down, and I urge those who saw it before to revisit it. DGG 02:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I noted other comments here, looked at the article again, removed nearly a dozen duplicate and near-duplicate links to the subject's own websites, did some additional Wikifying, updated my post (he's a research fellow due to become an associate professor this summer), and couldn't change my vote. — Æ. ✉ 19:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
(Userfication of this autobio would be as appropriate as, and kinder than, deletion. Either way, it would be out of article space.) — Æ. ✉ 02:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, it looks a lot better when I first saw it on COI/N. I still can't, however, vote keep. I remain unconvinced that the subject is currently notable and it still reads like a resume: the section titled "Biography" largely contains his various academic achievements and professorships; most of the information (as I understand), including the picture, is self-published on his website and the Gendercide website; in general, the subject is not noted, i.e. notable, but is instead self-published. Delete. --Iamunknown 18:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I will change my vote if somebody ads references to independent sources. Adam, please avoid editing your own article, but feel free to post references to the talk page for us to review. Do you have ISBN numbers for those books? Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 18:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Jehochman, you and anyone else may key those book titles into an Amazon search engine, and come up with the relevant ISBN data and related information. You may also consult the history page for a wide range of outside links attempting to demonstrate notability. DGG, please provide evidence to support your assertion that the University of British Columbia is not a research university. - Adam63 02:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Its a vanity page, it should go away RogueNinja 21:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this vanity page. Tempshill 19:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment: According to the latest thinking, the word 'vanity' shouldn't be used in AfDs because it might be perceived as insulting. See WP:VANITY for such a caution. EdJohnston 01:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
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.