Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Tama
=[[Jordan Tama]]=
:{{la|Jordan Tama}} – (
:({{findsources|Jordan Tama}})
non-notable John 22:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Very little GS presence. Far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC).
- Delete. Over 5000 GHits, but this seems to be due to the fact that he's basically a journalist. Nothing I can see makes me think he's notable. StAnselm (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. WoS shows 1 paper from 2004 that's never been cited. The listed book is [http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/50422856&referer=brief_results pretty widely held], but there's quite a significant caveat here. The primary author is Lee H. Hamilton (pictured on the cover) and the frontis says "Lee H. Hamilton with Jordan Tama". This seems to be a case where someone (Tama) helped to some degree more than the others that were acknowledged. Indeed in the acknowledgments Hamilton writes "This book is the product of more than three decades of work on foreign policy which I have conducted with the help of a great number of talented and dedicated people...Jordan Tama provided me with invaluable assistance in putting the book together, and Michael Van Dusen, Kenneth Nelson...The observations made in the book are mine, however, and I take full responsibility for its content." (emphasis mine) Tama is plainly thanked here in the context of assembling the material, but specifically not for playing any substantive role in authoring the content. The "with Jordan Tama" therefore seems to be nothing more than a special kind of gratuity. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC).
::I think it means Tama was the ghostwriter. StAnselm (talk)
:::My impression has been that ghostwriters' names don't normally appear, but if "putting the book together" is a euphemism in this case for ghostwriting, then I would still make the observation that the intellectual content probably did not come much from Tama. I think we still agree on the overall verdict. Thanks! Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2010 (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.