Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Holcombe

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. For whatever it's worth (probably little), I don't think the A7 decline was unreasonable. However there is a clear consensus here that Holcombe does not meet our notability guidelines. Jenks24 (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Holcombe

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested speedy deletion. Non-notable academic per WP:NACADEMICS. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 20:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. He appears to have dropped out of academia to become a middle school teacher [1]. And before then he taught at the university level with a master's degree for ten years rather than making even the minimal mark on scholarship that it would take to produce a PhD. So academic notability seems out of reach. And while it is not impossible to become notable as a middle school teacher, it would take extraordinary accomplishments that aren't visible here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, did you see the A7 removal by Adam9007? I believe that user doesn't know what A7 is (and thus we are wasting our time here). Anyway, this is an obvious delete for all the reasons mentioned above--basically, doesn't pass PROF, doesn't pass GNG. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of the ignorance of some editors, we owe the subject the respect of giving actual explanations for why he is not worthy of an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will continue to update the page. as stated by Adam9007 A7 doesn't apply. Additionally, Authorship of a paper published by The Office of Research Integrity further substantiates the claim. This should never have been marked for speedy deletion. Also - shouldn't have to be stated, but - there's no need for insults or name calling. Trailmixers (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Trailmixers, that paper--you linked a PDF without any publication information. I assume this is in reference to United States Office of Research Integrity? Since this is not a peer-reviewed publication (it seems), and since there is no secondary information that argues that somehow this paper is important, there is no way in which it can help notability per WP:PROF. In addition, a bit of poking around brings me to this, which makes me think that this is a UAB-run project, not the national club, even further diminishing its worth in regards to notability. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No argument from me that the article requires further development. Notability tag was completely reasonable. Deletion proceedings were premature. Article still under development. Trailmixers (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Trailmixers: Considering the fact that this article originally was about a completely different person whose surname you mis-spelled when you created it, I'm not sure how much development this article needs - after all, you've only created it to over-ride the redirect that was put in place when you created an article about a non-notable musician. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another baffling CSD decline from Adam9007, with the rationale "Teaching at a notable university is an indication of importance/significance" - no it bloody well isn't. The GNG isn't met, WP:PROF isn't met. Once again, editors' time is being wasted when an A7 Speedy would have been appropriate. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Exemplo347 your hostility toward opposition is fascinating. A7 is an extreme measure, and wildly inappropriate. Trailmixers (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. Speedy Deletion isn't an extreme measure, it's a routine part of Wikipedia's integrity procedures and it's not something to take personally. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Adam9007 we don't have the time to do the research needed to prove this person is notable. What I would suggest is that you put this in your sandbox and work on it until it is completely done, then ask for someone more senior to review it and try again. IMO don't publish the page live and attempt to work on it, that's the quickest way to get the page deleted. Finish, Review then Publish. Good luck to you, keep trying, but for the moment, there isn't evidence that it is ready.Sgerbic (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not the article's creator. Adam9007 (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any decent sources to salvage this. Adam9007, when you're faced with an AfD that's not going your way, you roll up your sleeves and improve the article, or you concede that deletion is the correct outcome. Attempt to torpedo the deletion process without bothering to improve the article is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Stop it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: The article was actually created by Trailmixers not Adam9007. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

@Exemplo347: Yes, that was kind of my point. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All Adam9007 did was to remove an A7 speedy tag because he felt that being a university instructor was a sufficient claim of significance to skate by on that criterion. That looks like a completely normal piece of the deletion process to me. In what way is it disruptive? Exemplo347, Drmies, Trailmixers, and others should note that judging something to not be eligible for A7 speedy is not the same as (and not supposed to be the same as) a judgement that the subject is actually notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might have got my wires crossed actually, and misread Adam's comment of "I'm not the article's creator" as trying to brush off any concerns about notability as not his problem, as opposed to just saying they were responding to the wrong editor. I decline A7s all the time with a summary of "decline speedy, try PROD / AfD" and many do indeed end up there, so to complain specifically about that would be the pot calling the kettle black. Sorry about that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: It's partly my fault: I ~~could~~ no, should, have made my meaning clearer. But yes, I did mean the latter. Adam9007 (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I would probably have declined A7 too with a rationale of "decline A7, some sources, vague claim to PROF, try AfD". Might have even started the AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm the article creator. I have added sources, a few other updates, and will continue to do so. Happy to discuss any/all feedback to improve the article, but this discussion has been largely unapproachable from my position. All of which could have been avoided if someone could have simply used the talk page..... Trailmixers (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

commentwith that, WP:Prof#C4 is met. Published papers used as a basis for ORI training programs Trailmixers (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you confirm which specific numbered criteria under WP:NACADEMICS you believe has been met? The Admin who will close this discussion after the specified period will need to see this. Exemplo347 (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sure. I fixed it. Do i have to request a review? Trailmixers (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This particular discussion will be closed by an uninvolved Admin, when they personally feel the discussion has gone on long enough for a consensus to be reached - it'll be a minimum of 7 days, and I've known them to go on for a few weeks if necessary. A request for early closure will probably be ignored - it's important that as many people as possible have a chance to participate. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thats reasonable. ok sounds good. thanks. Trailmixers (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2017 (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.