Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel R. Anderson
Source: 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS on all pending further work. -Splashtalk 01:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I speedied these articles for being nn-bio (no claim of notability) but they were restored by
]- Comment. I see no way to debate all these people in one nomination - this is not a bunch of related hoax articles, or vanity articles on a group of schoolfriends, but bios of academics who may each well have legitimate claims to notability. However, I would expect an experienced wikipedian such as Zanimum to do better in establishing the academic notability of these people. I added an external link to the webpage of Anderson, and he seems to have quite a few publications (and has been advisor to some notable TV shows). u p p l a n d 07:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all, for now. I prefer, for the time being, to assume the good faith of Zanimum (talk · contribs), the experienced Wikipedia editor who has created these stubs, and should be given a chance to improve them. He hasn't edited since the 30th and I think it would have been a good idea to give him a chance to work more on these articles before nominating them (and definitely before speedying them, as was originally done). I also strongly disagree with this group-nomination. The nominator has not attempted to show that the notability of each of these individuals is in any way dependent on that of the others. They should be judged as individuals. I notice, for instance, that some of these have hits on Amazon, others do not. u p p l a n d 13:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that these were not well served by being grouped, but understand why it was done. Who has assumed anything other than good faith, by the way? If someone removes a speedy tag, they aren't doing anything other than saying "I disagree." This is perfectly acceptable, as is bringing the article to AfD afterwards. As to articles needing to be "worked on," once they enter into main space they must stand on their own. - ]
- Point taken. If the consensus is to keep, I'll come back to the articles in a month or so and nominate them individually if I feel it's necessary. ]
- Keep all, for now. I prefer, for the time being, to
- My feeling is that these should
mergewith Sesame Beginnings, but if not keep because as much as I respect the nom, I don't understand how people like this get speedied. -- JJay 08:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to Keep as I fully agree with u p p l a n d's comments above (added after my vote), and the original editor can merge later if needed. Or perhaps I aim for the low side when it comes to academics and board members. -- JJay 14:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. Not notable, see WP:BIO. Some of these books might be close, but I aim on the high side when it comes to authors anyway.
- I'll put top amazon sales figures in soon, ]
- What difference do sales figures make to academic psychologists? What matters is whether they have made anything regarded as important by their peers, i.e. other people in their field. You can't tell that from book sales. Many things today are in any case published in academic journals, which few people buy, as they are available through electronic subscriptions at every university. u p p l a n d 10:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I was simply trying to find a criterion under WP:BIO that any of these people could pass. So, how do you propose that we determine if they are notable? - ]
- I suggest returning to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics, trying to agree on what the notability criteria should be for academics. Meanwhile, let's have a moratorium on the nomination of all these "nn professors", who very frequently turn out to be kept in the end anyway. I have made my personal view clear in many of these debates already and I'm not sure if this is the right place to have a more genreal discussion of the issue. u p p l a n d 13:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, trying to get a moratorium on nominations until some way can be worked out for things to be kept doesn't sound to good to me. WP:BIO represents the consensus view of lots and lots of wikipedians. - ]
- OK, forget the moratorium. The point is in any case not to get a moratorium "until some way can be worked out for things to be kept" (my italics). I'm not sure why you assume that. The point is to get a guideline reflecting the actual consensus of deletion discussions, which has been to keep in a large number of cases where the nominator has had nothing more to say than "nn professor". As should be obvious by now, WP:BIO doesn't say anything practically useful on the notability of academics. WTF is an "average college professor"? u p p l a n d 15:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My superficial reading of your contribution amounted to the words "moratorium, kept". I do apologise for any slight I rendered. Yes, the guidelines should reflect the results of AfDs, although there is some dynamic tension between the micro-level discussions here and the macro-level ones on guideline talk pages. If we could have some examples of other academics who fail the current BIO test but were kept, that would be good. - ]
- The point is not that academics are kept despite failing ]
- OK, forget the moratorium. The point is in any case not to get a moratorium "until some way can be worked out for things to be kept" (my italics). I'm not sure why you assume that. The point is to get a guideline reflecting the actual consensus of deletion discussions, which has been to keep in a large number of cases where the nominator has had nothing more to say than "nn professor". As should be obvious by now, WP:BIO doesn't say anything practically useful on the notability of academics. WTF is an "average college professor"? u p p l a n d 15:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest returning to
- If they wrote any books that sold well, it aids their notability. - Mgm|(talk) 13:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it may aid notability, but not having published a bestseller does not detract from academic notability. u p p l a n d 13:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I was simply trying to find a criterion under WP:BIO that any of these people could pass. So, how do you propose that we determine if they are notable? - ]
- What difference do sales figures make to academic psychologists? What matters is whether they have made anything regarded as important by their peers, i.e. other people in their field. You can't tell that from book sales. Many things today are in any case published in academic journals, which few people buy, as they are available through electronic subscriptions at every university. u p p l a n d 10:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive list of every PhD working at every University. Some academics are notable. These are not. Obina 12:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Obina, are you aware these people are not just random PhDs working at Universities, but also on the advisory board of a major international brand? -- user:zanimum
- Comment Firstly, I can agree to 'weak keep' for Anderson - but the article should list just his notable achievements and not every boring academic publication. (I was mislead by the blanket AFD, my mistake). The others seem like great people, but so are 99% of the academics worldwide. Being on an advisory board of a brand such as Seasame Beginnings is not notable. Nor does "being involved with" things. Brands have lots of advisors, year after year. And academics are all on lots of panels and committees, and make lots of publications. I think the idea to discuss outside this AFD is wise. Obina 10:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Tim Pierce 16:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Form letter - please always explain your reasoning per ]
- Keep. If no one else, you must keep Dr. Anderson, I've found that he's nearly a legend among the children's television industry, for both program creators and advertisers. He's involved in the creation of the top three rated programs for 2-5 year olds (Diego, Dora, Blue's), and been involved in all-time classics (Sesame, Kangaroo). The others are still notable, though not as accomplished, relatively. This is a spin-off of one of the world's top 10 preschool brands, just the fact they were chosen to be on the board should make them notable. -- user:zanimum
- Please put some work into improving these articles now. Tell us not only that someone is a PhD and on the faculty of a certain university, but exactly what position they have and how long they have had it. Dig up more on their publications and try to find reviews or citations that tell something about their influence on other people in their field. Are they members of editorial committees of important journals? Fellows of prestigious scientific societies? I'm voting keep for now, largely because it is a group nomination which doesn't really give any opportunity for a detailed discussion of each one of these persons, but I can easily see some of these being nominated for deletion again if they are kept this time. u p p l a n d 17:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh man... this is overkill, and doesn't actually tell us anything. I do appreciate the effort that has been put in, but an academic's job is to make publications, and this doesn't tell us anything about the notability of these publications. A better approach is to find what other people have written about the academic in question. - ]
- How does this skimmed down section look? It's only partially done, but it gives the idea. Just the journal, and every year he published in, with whom. -- user:zanimum
- No, don't waste your time doing that. A real bibliography has to include the article titles - that's the important part. However, I suggest that you limit yourself to his books and the most important articles. Look for citations and reviews to see which those are. And I don't think you should redlink all the book titles. Most books are not in themselves important enough to write individual articles about. If you are reading them, use them to improve Anderson's article. u p p l a n d 19:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this skimmed down section look? It's only partially done, but it gives the idea. Just the journal, and every year he published in, with whom. -- user:zanimum
- Oh man... this is overkill, and doesn't actually tell us anything. I do appreciate the effort that has been put in, but an academic's job is to make publications, and this doesn't tell us anything about the notability of these publications. A better approach is to find what other people have written about the academic in question. - ]
- RE: "one of the world's top 10 preschool brands, just the fact they were chosen to be on the board should make them notable." If this were a discussion of the board of directors of ]
- A former CEO of Nestle would be speedied? -- user:zanimum
- Please put some work into improving these articles now. Tell us not only that someone is a PhD and on the faculty of a certain university, but exactly what position they have and how long they have had it. Dig up more on their publications and try to find reviews or citations that tell something about their influence on other people in their field. Are they members of editorial committees of important journals? Fellows of prestigious scientific societies? I'm voting keep for now, largely because it is a group nomination which doesn't really give any opportunity for a detailed discussion of each one of these persons, but I can easily see some of these being nominated for deletion again if they are kept this time. u p p l a n d 17:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Daniel R. Anderson and Claire Lerner then Merge the rest with Sesame Beginnings. Anderson and Lerner seem more notable from my googling. -- jaredwf 06:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Broader discussion
I've made a placeholder at
]- 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.