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. I found the discussion here to be most interesting, and the comments from Dhartung and Myke Cuthbert were very helpful though they were "neutral". I have read the quoted WP:BIO criterion "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them", but I think that "notable award" here means an award which makes a person famous, not an award which meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. (Otherwise we could for example have articles on anyone wounded in combat for the US Military since they received Purple Hearts.) The question here regarding encyclopedic notability for this subject was whether the awards and participation in debates confer notability. The consensus appears to be that it does not, since such awards are fairly common. Nsk92 has also pointed out that there is a lack of available sources to make a decent biography. I recognize that two people have objected to deletion, but the consensus appears to be against them, and the case for deletion seems solid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dennison (biology)[edit]

Robert Dennison (biology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I see various unreferenced statements - I don't see how this individual is notable.

EDIT: The NPR article states he was the President of the Texas Association of Biology Teachers - but I'm not sure if that's notable. I would AFD it unless there is a consensus that this is notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is very confusing. Who is the nominator of this article, and do they want it deleted or not? Beeblbrox (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WhisperToMe (talk · contribs) placed the AFD tag and created the discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 08:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm trying to decide. Sources are not that great. He has awards, but mostly of the mass variety. He was on an NPR to debate evolution and he spoke at a state hearing on teaching it. But these were somewhat incidental. For the awards:

• Being President is an honor but not an award for merit. At the state level, I don't believe it's notable.
• The Siemens Awards go mostly to students, but one teacher per state. 1 of 50 or so.
• Life membership at state level even less notable than president.
• The AP Special Recognition Awards from College Board are annual, recognizing several teachers from a region.
• NABT Outstanding Biology Teacher of the Year is intriguing, but again it's "for Texas", implying 1 of 50.
• Distinguished Teacher by the White House is intriguing as well. If it's the same as National Teacher of the Year, which goes to one person, that's definitely an honor. If it's a State Teacher of the Year (who are the competitors for the National title), again, it's 1 in 50 or so.

So I remain neutral at this time. These are awards, but there are few sources about him, and the sheer number of state-level teacher awards would seem to obviate our making that inherently notable. In aggregate, though? --Dhartung | Talk 09:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:PROF. The awards themselves are of questionable overall notability. Definitely not an expert in any field and not the author of any kind of significant text. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Resume/CV for a non-notable high school teacher. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only thing that seems to approach real notability is being a guest on NPR's Talk of the Nation, and he was just a guest, not the subject of the show. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I don't think WP:PROF is appropriate here. It is not expected that high school teachers generally contribute to the advancement of their field in a scholarly manner. there ARE some exceptions to this (Mainly in the field of education, but there actually is a journal of HS chemistry), but by and large it is the rule. IT is also possible that a teacher could write a textbook, but that is much more likely to occur at the college level (as a college is probably more likely to grant a sabbatical to write a book than a public high school). I'm not sure if we have spearate guidelines for the notability of high school teachers, but if we don't we can follow WP:BIO more generally. "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." We can't probably make a full judgment of the notability of each of these awards received (aside from the fact that they don't have wiki links), but the run-down above actually does a good job. I'm inclined to think that about 2/3 of these awards are not too earth shaking, but the other 1/3 might be worth something. All in all, tie goes to the article. Protonk (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFAIK WP:PROF applies to all academics. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think the reason we don't have a WP:TEACH is because teachers generally aren't notable; any who rose to the level of satisfying WP:PROF would be, however. In any case, distinguished teaching awards don't seem to pass muster under WP:BIO, either, given the vast number awarded and the nebulous and oftentimes political criteria for receiving them. Can anyone point to any of this person's awards as being particularly distinguished? I would also say that this looks like a vanity page: the only other page that the page's creator contributed to was Robert Dennison (US Navy officer); the same goes another earlier contributor (both IP addresses from the same town in Texas). RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 14:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In the case that WP:PROF is meant to apply to high school teachers, I'm asking for a little common sense on the subject. If shouldn't be applied to them. It is entirely possible that a high school teacher could go their entire life without having written a textbook or contributed a scholarly work, yet still be notable (by virtue of awards, position, recognition). For one, we only need to meat one WP:BIO criteria to establish notability. For another thing, WP:PROF is written so that notable academics who would otherwise not be included could be added by the virtue of their contribution to scholarship. It is, in my opinion, inappropriate to apply those standards to a profession where publishing research is not an expected activity. Having said this, I also understand that this guy might not meet WP:BIO. To me it falls down to a judgment call on the notability of the awards, and their verifiability. Protonk (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep high school teachers normally become notable either through awards, and the question is whether these are sufficient. I think they are. In any profession, president of the State Association is significant.DGG (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF and does not satisfy WP:BIO either. Apart from the general WP:N itself, at the moment these seem to be the only applicable guidelines that one could use here to justify notability. The NPR reference is solid, but it is certainly insufficient to establish notability. A GoogleNews (all dates) search turns up only four more mentions[1]. The only factors to indicate real notability seem to be the awards listed. If more sources and details related to the awards are found, I may be willing to change to weak keep/keep, as one might then argue that he satisfies WP:PROF (based on criterion 6 of WP:PROF). I am somewhat sympathetic to Protonk's comments, but at the moment the choice here really is between WP:PROF and WP:BIO (and possibly WP:N), neither of which seems to be satisfied here. Nsk92 (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Remember, all he has to meet is this: "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.". Then it doesn't matter if he fails the rest of the criteria. In my mind there is a real verifiability problem for those awards (or at least, for all of them), but if that list is 100% true there is no reason to delete. Protonk (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral -- the awards don't seem to add up to WP's BIO notability, but it's hard for me from outside the field, to know. I believe, for instance, a national or state teacher of the year award is notable (and these seem to have survived AfD before), but it's hard to know what "Distinguished teacher, White House" is (how many are given? how is the award chosen? is the award covered by the national or even local press?). The president of Texas Association of Biology Teachers ([2]) might be a notable award, and the "Honorary Membership" (given five times) might also be: their newsletter does have advertisers (textbook printers), so there may be some indication of influence. He also won an award by a national biology teacher's association [3] but it's given yearly to 50 teachers, so that might not be enough [4] (then of course, Texas is extremely populous, with a young population). I'm leaning toward Keep, because there's a definite recognition that he is one of the best teachers in the second most populous state in America, and that's something. But then again, what does one gain from the article? It won't help to explain where a particular theory comes from (as Prof. articles tend to), it's unlikely to be of assistance for doing research--will it just become a vanity/vandalism trap? That pushes me more towards delete. (realizing now I'm basically going through Dhartung's arguments again). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:52, 29 April 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.