- 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. (non-admin closure) Femke (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Michael A. Elliott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Although Michael A. Elliot has a publication to his name information about the publication is not significant and pertains to just an overview of what the publication is. Additionally the majority of the biographical information comes courtesy of WP:PRIMARY sources based on his previous employment at Emory University. Elliot does not appear to have received independent coverage that establishes their notability per WP:GNG. Also seems to fail WP:BASIC. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep, albeit not the strongest, I think, as he has a named chair in one university, and is president of another, both of which are generally taken as signs of notability for academics. However, since both are private universities and not enormous, I'm open to being told by someone who knows the institutions that this isn't meaningful. Elemimele (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- (edit conflict) Keep; passes WP:NPROF crit. 5 as a named chair, NPROF crit. 6 as president of Amherst College, and probably WP:NAUTHOR in light of the many reviews of his book. Note that NPROF "is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline", so focusing only on SIGCOV and BASIC is generally not the best idea when dealing with academics. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:NPROF as a named professor and as president of a prominent university. Curbon7 (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- question for Elemimele, Extraordinary Writ and Curbon7 so do that mean we are okay to keep very short articles This article will be circa less than 5kb in size if the primary sourced information is removed? >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Please don't remove the information sourced to primary sources: per WP:NPROF, "non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details." Besides, length isn't a deletion reason, and in any event the article can simply be expanded by citing the reviews I mentioned above. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- At this moment in time I haven't removed the primary sources don't worry. I am surprised at NPROF and the subsequent guidelines to be honest. I'm a novice in this area - judging by the opposition to this deletion request. I am surprised that such short articles that are primary sourced are appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia but I'm a mere mortal and accept the views of the community and those more versed in these matters. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Yes. Curbon7 (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Nothing inherently wrong with a WP:STUB article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep, he passes Criteria 5 and 6 of WP:NPROF. As an academic familiar with both institutions, I find it unconvincing that the president of Amherst College is not a notable figure. As a liberal arts college, Amherst is small but still has a major presence in American academia and very highly regarded among the educated circles. CatchedY (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Obvious Keep, in view of their history, I would invite the nominator to review the deletion criteria before making more nominations.Jahaza (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- certainly not an assumption of Assume good faith on your behalf. I have always respected the view of the community and consensus even when I haven't agreed or understood fully. I am well versed in the AFD process, less so in this particular notability criteria. No need for the condescending comments. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- It's "assume good faith" i.e. that nominating the president of one of the most well known liberal arts colleges in the US wasn't malicious, not "assume they competently apply the policies".Jahaza (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I never assume someone creating or deleting an article is malicious. Policies are often open to interpretation. In this case its obvious I've misunderstood and I accept that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Someone can speedy close this if they wish - I don't contest it. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 00:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment: this article appears to have been nominated for deletion following its discussion[1] on WP:COIN by the nominator and @CatchedY, in which @CatchedY specifically mentioned it as an example of an article that met the requirements of WP:NACADEMIC and the nominator showed their awareness of that notability guideline.Jahaza (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- On a separate note, the nominator of this Afd also made a number of accusations of my created articles on the aforementioned WP:COIN discussion, such as saying that "Almost all of [the articles I created] read like online bios/CVs/resumes" and "however, across all of them there is the common theme of reliance on sources from Columbia Uni and almost always organisations they work for praising their achievements." In a separate Afd on an article that I created long ago as a novice that have since then moved back to draftspace and reverted by another editor, they claimed that the article was "part of a series of mass article created that are very similar in terms of coverage," which this article is purported to be a part of. While they claim to be assuming good faith, their words feel like subtle attacks and trivialization of my past work and edits by branding my edits as part of a promotional/publicity campaign. They also insinuated at the possibility of "mass nominate lots of articles for deletion," which sounded like a veiled threat and has discouraged me from further contributing to Wikipedia.
- Yes, there are faults in my articles, but Michael A. Elliott is definitely not one of them. Does the article need improvement? Surely it does, but discrediting his notability potentially risks WP:AGF, which bears a striking resemblance to the nominator's patronizing tone in addressing my body of works. Elliot is a good example where he has clearly met criteria 5 and 6 of WP:NPROF but the nominator insisted on his lack of notability even though they claim to be familiar with the WP:NACAMEDIC criteria. CatchedY (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- They were concerns not accusations based on the sampled articles that weren't all academics. I see now that academics are different to other biographies in that primary sources are allowed whereas for lots of other biography types they are not allowed. I have addressed these comments at the COIN. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 00:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- There is no prohibition on primary sources, on any biography. For other types of notability we base notability on hype (secondary sources), but primary sources can still be used for claims within the article if they are reliable. For academic notability we have the same sourcing requirements as any other biography for the claims within the article, but we base notability on quantifiable measures of scholarly accomplishment (heavily cited works, being given a professorial title beyond full professor, leading an entire university, etc) rather than on how often their university communications offices have managed to get newspapers to turn press releases about them into articles. But if you insist on published in-depth secondary sources, the article now has 14, in the form of published reviews of the subject's books. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep: (a) President of Amherst (b) Review of The Culture Concept: Writing and Difference in the Age of Realism, review of The Culture Concept: Writing and Difference in the Age of Realism. Gusfriend (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep. Clear passes of WP:PROF#C5 (named prof), #C6 (head of significant college), and WP:AUTHOR (two books each having many published reviews). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.