Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy Paino

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. Mkdw^talk 22:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Paino

Troy Paino (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)

This subject fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep Let's get real - the nominator of this article has meticulously gone through the list of articles I have created and nominated numerous ones for deletion, most of which have existed for a long period of time and some of which have PREVIOUSLY been put to a vote. This nomination is gross incompetence and disregard for the process and is motivated by some animus stemming from a separate issue. Troy Paino is the president of a university (Google it, dude), which is the "highest-level ... appointed academic post at a major academic institution". Criterion #6 for academics is met, and this nomination is frivolous. Adamc714 (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — A bona fide question remains: is Truman State University a "major academic institution or major academic society" within the meanings of the criteria? I don't think its prestige is clearly at the level that every president is inherently notable. Not every university has this effect on its presidents. Where's the third party sourcing for significant biographical details? JFHJr (㊟) 02:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - What are the rules governing whether an institution is "major"? The illustrative example just replaces the word "major" with "significant". That tells us nothing. By my reading of the criterion, there is a per se rule that Presidents of accredited universities are notable. I think the criteria are trying to avoid exactly what you are trying to start: a debate/vote on the significance of schools, which would produce arbitrary results at best. Adamc714 (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Many previous AfDs have established that a public university is a major academic institution and their presidents are notable. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

WP:OSE comments such as this at AFD are usually discarded. Did you want to apply a more policy-based argument? Toddst1 (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

This falls under

WP:PROF c6, which has been invoked here at academics' AFD numerous times. Agricola44 (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC).[reply

]

I completely agree. Bad reasons - that are totally irrelevant to the question of whether an encyclopedia article is possible to write on the subject - have been invoked in the past, so let's continue to invoke them! 66.108.176.187 (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to debate the merits of

WP:PROF#C6 on the notability guideline there, but we debate common policies and guidelines off of AfD specifically because they are invoked in lots of discussions. It'd be more productive to try to change consensus there than here.-- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk)

• Snow Keep. President of a large, accredited public institution (one of the MO state universities) is notable per se under
  WP:PROF c6 and there is plenty of documentation that he is indeed the president, e.g. this in the Kirksville Daily Express. Agricola44 (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC).[reply
  ]

• Question — So practically speaking, it's encyclopedic to have a stub entry that just says he is/was president? Just because Criterion 6 is met? Nothing else about this person seems to be reliably sourced, and should go. Nothing I've found contains more than a passing mention, except of course exclusively primary sources, which tend to be CV material.
  WP:BLPSPS prohibits us from basing articles on living persons overly on such sources. JFHJr (㊟) 21:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Passes
  WP:PROF C6 as president of a large and significant public university. To briefly summarize the justification for secondary notability criteria: consensus is that people passing these criteria are significant enough to be included, either because sources are certain to exist, or because sources exist for so many of them that completion is better than leaving it blank, or because their contribution to knowledge and its recording is significant in some other way. Ray^Talk 14:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Stub articles grow. We do not discourage them. There's material to add on his publications,at the very least, and undoubtedly references about his appointment. I added his doctoral thesis and a published article in a peer-reviewed journal. For a BLP , it's enough to clearly show and references the basis of the notability, and that is done here. We have sometimes deleted articles for presidents of very small higher educational institutions, but not a major university. There's no need it be a premier research institution--that's not what major means in this context. Any of the 4 year US state universities would meet this requirement. I'm not sure how far down we would go, possibly not to small junior colleges, but this is way above that. Just for the record, he wouldn't meet WP:CREATIVE as a writer, or WP:PROF as a researcher, but he does meet WP:PROF as an administrator. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Administrator Paino's behalf, I would like to thank you for contributing to his CV. By the way, this is Wikipedia, a neutral encyclopedia, is it not? 66.108.176.187 (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm a little mystified as to the claims that this is a large or major university. It has 6,000 students, of whom fewer than 300 are postgraduates. Is that large? I don't think so. It's actually pretty, if not very, small as universities go. I'm not going to express an opinion as to deletion, but let's not make inflated claims about this university's size. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A debate on "large" is an irrelevant distraction. As a public (state) university, this institution is "major" for the purposes of
  WP:PROF c6. Agricola44 (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC).[reply
  ]

• No, it's a valid point. It is in no way irrelevant. Your second point appears to be based purely on your own interpretation. Nowhere does it say that all public universities are covered. I'm curious as to where you think it says that public university = major institution. Particularly since in many (if not most) countries all or nearly all universities are public. To my thinking, a "major" institution is one that is very large or has a significant research base. 6,000 students is not very large and fewer than 300 postgraduates is not a significant research base. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The record of academics' AfDs shows a very broad consensus that US public universities qualify in this way. For context, the debate you're describing here actually takes place much farther down the "food chain", e.g. at the level of the small religious institution (yeshiva, bible college, etc.). Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Odd that we debate whether sizeable Indian and Chinese universities should even have articles (in the opinions of some editors they shouldn't have because they're "not notable"), but there is apparently a consensus that presidents of even small American universities should have articles, is it not? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but your wanting to debate the guidelines themselves here is veering pretty far off-topic. We're only really discussing notability of Paino. A growing raft of "keeps" seem to indicate that he is – again, not surprising under the
  guidelines as they stand at the moment. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC).[reply
  ]

• I don't want to "debate the guidelines" - I made a comment on an incorrect statement (that this was a "large" university, which it is clearly not), as was clearly stated before my comment. You were under no obligation to answer it and you are under no obligation to continue to do so! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fantastic. We'll consider this thread closed then. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep -- This is a very poor article, but a university president is certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2013 (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.