Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Carter

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 keep. John254 01:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Carter

Spammy autobiography; while it has enough of an assertion on notability to just avoid speedying, I can't see anything to indicate any particular notability. – iride scent 19:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nom completely. +WP:AUTOBIO. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ ~~I hate to say it, because the creating editor has been so COItastic (it looks like he's even removing AfD templates now), but if we can source that chair claim won't he be meeting WP:PROF?~~ Movingboxes (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No - the criterion you're thinking of is "The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research", which doesn't seem to apply. – iride scent 19:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the clarification. Movingboxes (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Violation per wp:bio notable rewords on the page need a citation .Alexnia (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promo fest fails WP:PROF. Movingboxes (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC) See this search for more publications. --Eastmain (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) Keep his UCD website has a Professional Activities and Awards which lists only his 2000 Agricultural & Applied Economics Association fellowship [1] (but that page lists more, but IMHO non-notable awards). As I see it, he doesn't meet WP:PROF criteria 2 through 9, but looks to meet #1. The Biography very much needs to be cleaned up, COI removal, de-puffing etc.Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Pete Hurd. A fellow of AAEA (2000) and the AAEA outstanding essay award (2001) seem to be enough to pass criterion 1 of WP:PROF. GoogleBooks results are significant: 227 hits[2]. The article could certainly use clean up for neutrality of language. Nsk92 (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above: fellowship, awards, citations, refs added by Eastmain, etcJohn Z (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm striking my "delete" given the recent improvements made to the article. Note that an IP user is still messing with the article and removing the AfD templates. I'm afraid that this article will require monitoring for COI issues since this person obviously doesn't want to work within our policies. He may be notable per WP:PROF, but he's also very happy to use Wikipedia for his own self-aggrandizement. Movingboxes (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep striked mine aswell with the current state of the article I think the article doesn't need to be deleted any-more + Eastmain improved the article occurding wikipedia guidelinesAlexnia (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC) greatly.Alexnia (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It always showed he was notable. Tho chair of a dept isnt a named chair in the sense listed at Wikipedia:prof, but it is sometimes even more notable--first of all he was full prof in Agricultural Economics at Davis, one of the world's top departments. Then he was chair of the dept, one of its most senior faculty among even them. Naturally, this does with many, many other aspects of notability. Many of them, like the awards, were in the article from the beginning. The assumption is sometimes made that people who submit a COI autobio are not notable, or that the articles are too spammy to be fixd--this is nonsense--one has to actually evaluate the article. That an experienced admin thought it was "just enough to avoid speedy"-- with all of that actually present in the article-- is somewhat unsettling... DGG (talk) 02:04, 2 September 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.