Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Cram

Add links
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 was delete. This is not a notable person. While there is a set of newspaper articles linked that mention him, there is no significant discussion of the person or their work. Being a professor is by itself not a reason for notability, and being an administrator or adjunct faculty member even less so. What we have is a person with a job and a number of social functions, mentioned in the papers, but piling up those mentions that do not discuss the topic in any depth does not add up to encyclopedic notability, as DGG, Candleabracabra, and David Eppstein point out. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Cram

Roger Cram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable under WP:PROF or anything else--I cannot even decipher from the references what subject he was a professor of. the references are pure PR for his projects. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 21:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 21:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete as possible hoax. Even if not, no notability found and only of local interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete This looks hoaxy. Without strong references, no reason to keep.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why would you think this is a hoax? This article cites a variety of newspaper articles, and all of them discuss Roger Cram. They are well-established newspapers published in a variety of locations, and many of the articles are accessible online. None of them are primary sources; they are not public relations pieces. Cram is an established expert on the Tuskegee Airmen and he lectures on this subject often. He is a prominent member of the Hiram, Ohio community and has received much publicity from his administration of an organization that performs random acts of kindness. I have added an additional six newspaper articles as sources. Neelix (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under
    WP:BIO either. The links to news articles seem to all be broken or lead to unrelated materials. It does look like a hoax indeed.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The links are not broken; you simply need a valid login. I don't understand how people can think that this article is a hoax. Isn't anyone willing to look up the newspaper articles through their local library? These are reputable newspapers with no relation to each other all discussing the same person. Surely, they didn't all conspire together to deceive the world about the existence of a Tuskegee Airmen scholar. Neelix (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think this is a hoax — searching hiram.edu for his name yields plenty of hits — but that's not the same as finding evidence of academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just fixed 9 of the sources, now freely viewable. Only 2 or 3 are still unviewable offline. The article is sufficient for
    WP:GNG
    . I hope the Delete votes above will revisit now that a large number of new sources have been added. Those sources include:
--
C 16:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG .. AfD is a topic-level not content-level discussion. If there is bad content, lets remove it. The notability of the topic is independent of the article. --
C 00:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
"Local sources" are OK, so long as they are not all from the same location, this one has diverse locations. Per our rules-based criteria at GNG, a topic is notable if it has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. You are not obligated to agree with GNG (IAR), so I guess the question is why should we make a special exception and ignore GNG in this case. It's unclear what is meant by "marginal sources", they all appear to be reliable published news sources. --
C 15:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I am surprised by your interpretation of
WP:GNG. The guideline states that, if a subject meets the general notability criteria, that subject "is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". Neelix (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The guideline goes on to say:

* "Presumed" means that significant coverage

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
.

This is that "more in-depth discussion". JohnCD (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; this discussion is a valid one to be having. I haven't seen anyone making the argument that this article violates what Wikipedia is not. The arguments for deleting this article have been either hoax-based or notability-based, and I think we have established at this point that the article is not a hoax and that it meets the notability guidelines. You are certainly welcome to introduce novel reasons for deleting the article if you believe that it violates what Wikipedia is not. Neelix (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How has notability been established? Where is the substantial coverage in reliable independent sources? Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9 sources have been posted above. If you agree that is enough is a matter of personal opinion but your suggestion that there are no sources is inaccurate. --
C 16:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Do any of them have substantial coverage of this subject? If so which ones? Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2014 (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:Articles_for_deletion/Roger_Cram&oldid=1088289740"