Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Titzer

:{{la|Robert Titzer}} ([{{fullurl:Robert Titzer|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Titzer}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

The Article is orphaned, for one thing, there is little to no content, and it is a stub. Veraladeramanera (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• comment Veraladeramanera appears to be the author of the article, and to have defended it previously. Something odd going on here? Artw (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There is some discussion on the talk page that is relevant here. Seems as if the author is frustrated about concerns regarding notability, perhaps? fuzzy510 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARobert_Titzer&diff=269343296&oldid=269343088 this edit], the author wrote "I do not know how to delete, so I would like you to." Doesn't that fall under WP:CSD#G7? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• note prior AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert C. Titzer (my delete !vote there applies here too) that article was deleted by AfD Oct 16 2008, the article with the current spelling was speedied Oct 17 2008, suggest salting this time around for both name versions. Pete.Hurd (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC) swayed by arguments below against salting, still recommentd deletion. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I read the previous AfD discussion. Based on that, and my own WP:PROF research on the subject (doesn’t pass WP:PROF, as noted by Pete.Hurd), I would be inclined to recommend delete and salt. However, there appears to be [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Robert+C.+Titzer%22 significant news coverage] of the subject, possibly making it notable under WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• A quick google shows some evidence of notability, but since the current article is largely the work of Veralderamenera I think it's probably better to delete it under WP:CSD#G7, per HelloAnnyong, and bypass any wikidrama that might spin out of arguing for and against deletion. I don't think salting is appropriate, as someone else might have valid reasons for writing an article in that namespace. Artw (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Sounds reasonable to me.--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Or they might even do it before the AFD is over - see below. Artw (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The article was a copyright violation of [http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=resources&id=4265738 this], but I have since rewritten the article. The multitude of reliable sources about this person, including [http://articles.latimes.com/1998/aug/29/local/me-17569 this Los Angeles Times article] confirms his notability per WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - rewrite looks good. Artw (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - The article is stub-class for one thing. Several administrators don't want it on wikipedia, I even agree with them, the article was copied almost entirely from the book, and it is of near-low importance. Veraladeramanera _Talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

:*I've stricken out your delete vote above because since you started this deletion nomination, you shouldn't add delete votes to the discussion. You may make comments, but please don't prefix your comments with "delete". Cunard (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

:*Who doesn't want this article on Wikipedia? The arguments for deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert C. Titzer are moot since the article is no longer copied from the book. I have rewritten the article. If you have any objections to the content that is currently in the article, feel free to voice your concerns on which content is objectionable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. There seems to be [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Robert+C.+Titzer%22 significant news coverage]; passes WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Just with respect to the nomination, , "orphaned", "stub" and "little contenet" are none of them reasons for deletion. DGG (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep but not as an academic. As an academic, he is throughly non-notable. He is co-author of one published paper only, "Knowing in the context of acting: The task dynamics of the A-not-B error" by Smith, L.B., Thelen, E., Titzer, R., McLin, D. in Psychological Review , Volume 106, Issue 2, April 1999, Pages 235-260. It has 96 citations, but he was not a principal author, principal authors appear to have been Linda B Smith, with 96 papers, highest citations 163, 153, 119, 113. and Esther Thelen, with 69 papers, highest citations 203, 153, 147, 117, with many joint papers. He and McLin (who has 5 other papers) were just some junior people in the group; the work is about Piagetian theories of spatial perception, and not really loosely connected with his method of teaching reading. There is no actual evidence he has ever been a professor of anything anywhere: he appears to have held a tenure track job for only 2 years, at a minor university. But as a self-advertising propagandist of dubious educational theories, which have a modest amount of popular attention, he might be notable. Among the references for the article or in Google, there is only one among them that has any degree of objectivity, the 1998 one from the LA Times. The ABC news "story" is fundamentally a just a copy of his publicity, as can be seen from the identical language to the others. Needs considerable editing to make clear that this is pseudo-science. DGG (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2009 (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.