Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven F. Freeman

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.  Sandstein  17:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven F. Freeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article's subject fails to meet criteria for notability. Additionally, the article's creator, user:Buon professore, has little history here in wikipedia, except for editing this page and pages related to Steven F. Freeman. Bonewah (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He's got sources and appears in places, even in books. The article needs to be rewritten, but that isn't ever a reason for deletion. DARTH PANDA^duel 14:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I nominated this article. Publishing a book does not establish notability, as per notability of academics.Bonewah (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One of many non-notable academics with an axe to grind. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum they fall on, not every partisian professor who writes a book is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry.Theseeker4 (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I do not see evidence of passing WP:PROF. Information on his awards seems to be difficult to find – a speakers’ site has some. The awards do not seem to be the type that would fit WP:PROF criterion #2. Business Source Complete returned 3 hits for him, with a total of 4 citations in that database. ABI/INFORM returned 1 hit only. Google Scholar returned 14 hits; the most highly cited has 10 citations. Most news sources that could establish WP:BIO notability refer to his calls for an investigation of 2004 Presidential Election, and related book. Many others have made many similar points in the past, and the media lost interest in the topic.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is discussed by various sources. Media interest in or even the importance of his topic is not a reason to delete. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Media interest is the core of verifiability and reliable sources. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All the references on the page were written by Freeman, save one. A Status Report of the House Judiciary Democratic Staff mentions his work, but being cited is normal for academics. His CV lists eight articles and two books, which is enough for tenure, but probably not enough to pass WP:PROF. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Politics aside, the guys a nut real character. He created a sockpuppet account to create an article about himself and push his tinfoil hat fringe theories to sell books. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could you point us to the Sockpuppetry case? Also, please be more civil with your tone: even nuts deserve their day in WikiCourt :) RJC ^Talk_Contribs 00:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. RJC, you're right and I apologize for the brash language. RE:Sockpuppetry, the account User:Buon professore, was the creator of the Freeman article as well as other articles which happen to match nearly identically to many of the edits Freeman made on an issue Wiki he runs. While "Buon professore" disputes this identification, it appears the evidence disagrees.71.178.193.134 (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I'm not sure that's sockpuppetry, since it involves only one account. It might be a conflict of Interest, though. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It's not by the literal definition, but I think the intent is the same. Does WP have a term for prentending your someone else to make an article for yourself?71.178.193.134 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. It is frowned upon according to WP:COI, but there's nothing that says you have to acknowledge who you are in real life in order to edit Wikipedia, or that you can't edit articles on yourself so long as you adhere to the guidelines. We might discount a person's assertion of their own notability, but I believe they are permitted (in that no administrative action can be taken) to assert their own notability without acknowledging who they are. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 00:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment That would be my take on it as well, its noteworthy, but not against the rules. Bonewah (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2008 (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.