Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Martin (academic)
=[[Dan Martin (academic)]]=
:{{la|Dan Martin (academic)}} – (
:({{Find sources|Dan Martin (academic)}})
Article fails to demonstrate the subject's notability. No cited sources. Google search uncovers only primary sources. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BIO Dolphin (t) 02:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dolphin (t) 02:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. His bio here and at CMU makes him look more like a mid-level academic administrator than someone with either the high research impact or top-level administrative position that WP:PROF demands. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
::WP:PROF does NOT demand those things. Read the Criteria section. He only needs to meet ONE of them. He does. #5 (named chair). --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -- per WP:PROF#C5 -- according to [http://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2012/july/july2_martincfa.html] he now has a named chair and is Dean of their School of Fine Arts (no longer interim). CMU's drama program is near the top in the country; I don't see the type of work that most academics do, but I think that the named chair, full dean, and top-ranked program make it a clear WP:PROF notability pass. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding is that #C5 refers to named chairs given for the personal merits of the holder, and not to ex officio named chairs for deans etc, which this one looks to be. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Do you have evidence to back up your understanding, because the guidelines don't distinguish? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
::::I think that David's interpretation would be reasonable if we knew it were an ex officio chair, but I don't think we do. For all we know he was in line for a named chair for his research and its availability coincided with a larger turnover that also left the deanship open (there are named Deanships, but this is not one of them). I think that speculating why a researcher got a chair (is it the research quality? or because she was well liked, or because of whom he was sleeping with, etc.) is a bit too close to original research for my tastes. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No secondary sources, no independent, notable sources regarding his research. As a matter of fact, I don't see any published research. Kind of makes WP:ACADEMIC a hard sell. Yes, he is currently a dean at a major university. Great. But, I would have voted for keep if he acquired that position while publishing, distinguishing himself (e.g. fellowship) in some way. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
::WP:ACADEMIC makes clear that "for the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted as sourcing for those details." Therefore, the announcement by CMU is a perfectly acceptable, reliable source But it was also published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the city's major daily newspaper. Also, published research is not necessary at all. WP:ACADEMIC is not only not a hard sell, it actually proves Martin's notability. Read the Criteria section. He only needs to meet ONE of those criteria. He does. #5 (named chair). --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: In addition to his n.chair at Carnegie Mellon University (a highly rated US university) I think his presidency of the Association of Arts Administration Educators is sufficient to show notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC))
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't have much faith in the AfD process. One of the reasons for this is the fact that "decisions" about what articles make the cut seem to be made haphazardly. Sure, reasoning is looked at, but in the end it seems that power by numbers is the game. With that in mind, the fact that dolphin51 and others note the lack of substantial secondary coverage of Martin is one of the main reasons why this article ought to be deleted. Of course, the keepers can just keep voting to keep and say he has a chair at CMU and that is enough and that'll probably do it. Funny how AfD is the underbelly of this "encyclopedia." No wonder so many editors bolt!Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- :Jim -- you noted your reasons in your delete vote above, but what would you expect the research publication path of a superstar arts administrator to be? As far as I can see, he's the only prof. of Drama management in their super-highly regarded school, so I don't see any independent evidence that CMU has lowered any standards to appoint him. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Jim, I think this discussion proves that this decision is not being made haphazardly at all. That's not to say that there haven't been, and won't continue to be, inadequate AfD discussions. But what I see here is good-faith, thoughtful input. And the fact is that Martin does hold a named chair at a major university, which is not in dispute. That by itself establishes his notabiltiy per WP:ACADEMIC. WP:ACADEMIC also points out that the official announcement on a univeristy's website is considered a perfectly reliable source. Major universities don't go around making announcements about appointments that never actually happened. Having said all that, absent the named chair Martin holds, I was originally leaning toward recommending deletion. But that was before I read the guidelines with regard to the importance of the chair, and then read CMU's description of him as "the founding dean of arts management." I would've looked into that pretty impressive statement more had I not discovered that Martin's holding the chair was enough to establish his notability. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The only way I see him passing the notability test is per criteria 5 of WP:ACADEMIC: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." He does hold a named chair, but it's an intermim postition. Is holding a named chair enough to establish notability, when nothing else establishes it? If so, is holding an INTERIM named chair enough? Absent this one factor, I would not hesitate to recommend deletion. Thoughts? By the way, when I see puff terms like "superstar arts administrator" and "super-highly regarded school," it puts a giant red flag up for me indicating that notability can't be established based simply on the subject's own merits. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
:: My reading is that he has now "been named the Stanley and Marcia Gumberg Professor and Dean of the College of Fine Arts (CFA), effective July 1" [http://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2012/july/july2_martincfa.html]. That is it is no longer interim. I think his managing Directorship of the Classic Stage Company might also be important. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC))
:::Yep, looks like the chair is permanent, but that he'll continue as interim dean of the College of Fine Arts. The line that stood out most to me in the CMU announcement was that Martin is "a prominent arts management scholar and practitioner known as the "founding dean" of arts management." Wow, founding dean of arts management... that's a pretty powerful piece of information and, if accurate, certainly establishes his notability in academia, particularly when it's combined with holding the chair. I wish that statement was from a source not directly connected to Martin, but it's never nevertheless credible and from a highly-ranked school (and top-ranked in drama). --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It's now clear, from an objective standpoint, that Martin passes the notability test based on the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC, which says that "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." Criteria 5 is: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." Martin holds a named chair at a highly-regarded university, so he's notable. The CMU announcement is a reliable source per the notability guidelines, and it was also published in the [http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/ae/art-architecture/art-notes-high-heat-fails-to-burn-out-heritage-festival-fans-644160/ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
:::*Comment I guess this comment is directed to the editor from Ohio, who seems to be intent on reminding me and others to read WP:PROF and WP:GNG over and over, as if none of us have, or that it is some type of esoteric knowledge he is clueing me in on. Yeah, read it. Thanks. Also read: The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE). Somehow I don't see--from an "objective standpoint" or otherwise that Martin's so called "superstar" administrator status as a chair of the Drama department at CMU as notable. It doesn't have the same feel as the chair of NAS or other examples noted in the guidlines. Again, though, these are guidlines, not rules, so there are exceptions. Did you read that, too? Then again, just being a dean of a school is not enough to be notable. I;m sure he does a great job. He started programs and did all sorts of great administrative stuff, but...that in itself isn't notable. If it were, every dean of every major college would have a WP page. Also, for someone whose been in academia so long, he only has three peer-reviewed publications on his resume. Not impressive nor notable.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::Jim, I agree that if you take away his named chair, he likely does not pass the notability test. That's where I was originally. (Although I am interested in looking into the description CMU attached to him, when they called him the "founding dean of arts management.") I also agree with you that the puff terms like "superstar" shouldn't be taken seriously. The sole reason I voted to keep this article is because WP:ACADEMIC is very clear and unambiguous: "Academics/professors meeting any ONE of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." It says "are" notable, not "may be" notable. Martin passes C5, so he's notable. That's purely objective. You sound like you're angry about the entire AfD process and that you have little faith in it. I understand your frustration based on a number of AfD discussions I've seen. Maybe you should step away from AfDs for awhile. Just a thought. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2012 (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.