Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn P. Wilbur

: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. MBisanz talk 06:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

=[[Shawn P. Wilbur]]=

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

A lot of fluff, but no substance. The individual does not appear to be even marginally notable. While someone might have cited something he said somewhere, no articles have been written about him. WP:BIO says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." Your honor (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


:*The subject has made no edits to the article, and has only posted to the talkpage to correct the date of birth. The rest of your points I refute below. Regards, Skomorokh 09:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment from creator The reason I wrote this article is because the subject is mentioned in several distinct and unrelated articles, and there was a clear need to provide context to our readers. His work is [http://books.google.co.uk/books?um=1&ned=uk&hl=en&q=%22shawn%20wilbur%22&sa=N&tab=np frequently] [http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?um=1&ned=uk&hl=en&q=%22shawn%20wilbur%22&sa=N&tab=ps cited] in scholarly literature; the vast majority of which is not yet integrated into the article. Beyond this, he has been the subject multiple instances of non-trivial coverage as cited, which in case anyone has forgotten is the primary standard for inclusion. The nomination seems to confuse the concept of notability with that of importance, when what it is really concerned with is verifiability. It is critically important for Wikipedia to be transparent in identifying its sources, and providing well-referenced articles on the scholars and work frequently used in writing the encyclopaedia is a crucial and neglected part of this. The article itself is neutral, verifiable and does not engage in original research, and can be much further expanded from the available reliable sources. I cannot believe that deleting it is in the interest of the encyclopaedia or its readership. Skomorokh 09:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You need to check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO . It says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." It doesn't matter how many writings you can find where someone has cited something he wrote. That doesn't make HIM notable. You would have to find writings ABOUT HIM, for HIM to be notable. Your honor (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • BIO is a sufficient, not necessary criterion for notability, supplanted like all guidelines by the WP:5P. Why would the encyclopaedia be improved by the deletion of this article? Skomorokh 19:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It would be improved by not throwing people off track to read about this insignificant individual, thinking he might be someone important to read about when in reality he's just your average guy that hasn't done anything more notable or impacting on the world than half the population. If you include people like this there is no stopping what people articles would be written about. Might as well go through the phone book and start adding people. It's a basic rule for Wikipedia that the subject of articles have to be notable. In short, it's not encyclopedic. I came across this article just browsing through anarchists, and was taken aback by how silly this article was. It makes Wikipedia seem foolish, and not be taken seriously. It's not encyclopedic. Your honor (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —94.196.22.232 (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —94.196.22.232 (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment from translator: I translate article to spanish because almost de same reason, his work is cited in many schoolar works about American History of political ideas. Thanks. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - I'm not convinced notability has been demonstrated, per WP:BIO and WP:PROF; though he seems to be marginally notable, so perhaps it could be. If sufficient evidence can be provided that this person has been the subject of significant coverage from multiple independent sources, I will change my position. Robofish (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • delete contra Skomorokh's claim that "His work is frequently cited in scholarly literature" the Google scholar link he provides demonstrates an h-index of 3, which really isn't all that impressive. His most cited publication is an essay posted to geocities, and I'm not inclined to treat GS "citation" counts of geocites essays at par with citation counts from something like WoK. Fails WP:PROF & WP:BIO. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Pete Hurd, even if we would take the Google Scholar counts at face value, one paper with 123 cites (and a few others with barely any cites at all) does not make the cut for me. --Crusio (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - marginal non-notable bio; reluctantly (I suspect I'd like this guy if we met, and we've got some interests in common), but he just doesn't make the cut of notability, either as an academic or under any other category. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per WP:BIO, WP:PROF, Robofish. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm not sure we should be judging him as an academic strictly, since his claim to notability is as blogger and cultural critic rather than as a former college instructor. Either way, I am not convinced of his notability. Jvr725 (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - no established notability based on reliable third-party sources. The guy ran a bookstore and has self-published papers. That's not enough. --John Nagle (talk) 04:41, 27 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.