- 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. The only "delete" !vote here cites as a reason a point that has been addressed at the previous AfD and was overruled at the time. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Jerome Katz
- Jerome Katz (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, deleted a tonne of WP:OR -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 03:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep for the same reasons as the first AfD: clear and obvious passes of WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C5. This WP:NOTNOTABLE nomination which does not even explain why the outcome should be different this time deserves a speedy close. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- It does explain why it should be different. I deleted a tonne of original research from the article. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 03:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Which has nothing to do with the reasons for his notability. "I deleted stuff" is not a deletion rationale. (I do think your trimming was on the whole an improvement, though.) —David Eppstein (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Checking for previous interactions between CFCF, the first person to RfD this article and the banned editor may reveal the real reason for this recommendation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.217 (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- You mean that this article was created as a result of paid promotional editing, that the people who did the paid editing still seem to be active, and that CFCF dislikes edits-for-pay (as do I)? Yes, but the paid editing was discussed last time around and deemed not a significant enough factor to delete. This post-AfD edit is suspicious, possibly grounds for believing that paid editing is continuing, but it's not a big edit, and watchlisting the article should be enough to keep the problem in check. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Checking for previous interactions between CFCF, the first person to RfD this article and the banned editor may reveal the real reason for this recommendation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.217 (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Which has nothing to do with the reasons for his notability. "I deleted stuff" is not a deletion rationale. (I do think your trimming was on the whole an improvement, though.) —David Eppstein (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- It does explain why it should be different. I deleted a tonne of original research from the article. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 03:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Collapsing off-topic discussion about sockpuppetry and off-wiki cabals |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Still waiting to hear about the "clear chain of events" that motivates a member of the WP:MED cabal to revisit a closed RfD on a non-MED article after 8 months. It's nothing to do with the creator of the article writing an unflattering blog post about Doc James last week, I suppose? Or is that another coincidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.139.241 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
|
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- delete despite the unquestionable notability, as being undoubtedly paid editing in violation of the terms of use. (the current tou requiring identification went into effect June 16, 2014. This article was started by the now-banned editor/sockmaster on Dec 15, 2014. He was banned a few days later. (it doesnt qualify for speedy deletion as G5 because there were substantial good faith edits by others. But that just means it requires discussion, not that it should be kept. We are benefitted when such articles are deleted, because it removes the work from Wikipedia, where the continued presence of such articles is a disgrace. Deleting it further helps to explain to naive outsiders why they should not unethical paid editors. It will be easy enough to start again from scratch by someone responsible. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep as per David Eppstein.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
KEEP under Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) as he holds a named chair appointment [1] --Acurry4 (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- ^ "Coleman Entrepreneurship Chairs & Professorships". The Coleman Foundation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- 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.