Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leif-Eric Easley

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. The consensus of those who commented on our policies were that this person does not meet WP:PROF at this time. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leif-Eric Easley

edit
Leif-Eric Easley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe, having read WP:PROF that this article qualifies - I cannot find anything outstanding or particularly notable in the text. Stephenb (Talk) 12:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I am an intern with a top policy think tank based in Washington, D.C. As a Wikipedian with primary interest in building a helpful, informative online community, and a young professional in foreign policy, I find this article on Dr. Leif-Eric Easley not only a source of inspiration but an informed piece of writing in conformity with Wikipedia's criteria. In addition to the general and specific requirements for an entry, the piece meets notability criteria for academics, a primary point of contention in this debate, noting that the original claim made for deletion of the piece predicates entirely on the academic not being "outstanding or particularly notable."

1. Notability According to Wikipedia, "academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable" (notability criteria were previously cited): scholarly impact; academic honor; membership or fellowship in a major scholarly society; impact on higher education; high-level academic post; impact outside academia; chief editor of a journal; or being in the field of fine arts meeting notability criteria. Dr. Easley meets not one but at least three of these elements, thereby qualifying as a notable academic worthy of a Wikipedia entry. First, the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. This is demonstrated by the professor's publications in numerous academic journals, which are clearly documented in the entry. A Google search demonstrates that his publications have been cited by other academics in sources such as:

-- John Ikenberry, Michael Mastanduno and William Wohlforth, International Relations Theory and the Consequences of Unipolarity (Cambridge University Press, 2012).

-- Jing Men, “The EU and China: Mismatched Partners?” Journal of Contemporary China, Vol. 21 (2012), pp. 333-349.

-- Taku Tamaki, “’Surrounding Areas’ and The Recalibration of Japan’s Threat Perception,” East Asia, Vol. 29 (2012), pp. 187-213.

-- Robert Weiner and Yuki Tatsumi, “How Does the Democratic Party of Japan Affect Security Policy?” U.S. Naval Postgraduate School Report, No. 2012-008 (2012), pp. 1-51.

Second, the person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. A Google search uncovers that the professor's academic work has been assigned on course syllabi at Harvard, MIT, American University, Boston University, and the U.S. Air Force Academy, among other institutions. The entry also documents the professor's contributions to teaching at multiple institutions: Harvard, Stanford and Ewha (the world's largest women's university).

Third, the person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. In the policy-relevant community, the professor is quoted by the media and is well known in Korea to be involved in policy dialogues with government officials from South Korea, Japan and China. It is also well known that the professor regularly offers policy advice to U.S. diplomats and officials. The entry provides many citations to various independent sources that indicate the professor's policy contributions. Also, Ewha University has a list of publications online that includes over 50 articles written by the professor, most of them with clear policy relevance.

2. Verifiability Wikipedia's another important principle is "attribut[ing] all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The article's sixty-seven references and seven external links to academic sources including Harvard, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, UCLA, USC, and Ewha Women's University and global think tanks like CSIS and KEIA, in addition to renowned news sources as The New York Times, The Economist, and China Daily, are clearly evidence of adherence to Wikipedia's verifiability criteria.

There hardly is a statement or an argument subject to challenge in the article that is not properly cited. More importantly, the person who has challenged the authenticity of this article has not provided a supported rationale.

3. General Requirements The comments below in support of keeping this article have already pointed out other requirements which the article satisfies (see below).

For reasons thus far supported with reliable sources including Wikipedia's own and materials provided by renowned, global academic and research institutions, building on my belief that the preservation of this article will inspire many other aspiring policy-makers and students like myself, I believe the biographical piece on Dr. Leif-Eric Easley should be kept. In-young Esther Park (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)In-young Esther Park. — In-young Esther Park (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Howicus (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. I find this article as sufficiently satisfying the qualifications presented by Wikipedia. Under Wikipedia's specific criteria notes, it is stated "for the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1, significant academic awards and honors may include, for example: major academic awards (they would also automatically satisfy Criterion 2), highly selective fellowships (other than postdoctoral fellowships); invited lectures at meetings of national or international scholarly societies, where giving such an invited lecture is considered considerably more prestigious than giving an invited lecture at typical national and international conferences in that discipline; named lectures or named lecture series..." The professor was invited to several national and international scholarly societies to publish his work; he was invited to be the keynote speaker at the Doshisha University and also invited to speak at the International Studies Association, the most respected and renowned academic conference in the field of international studies. This is in addition to meeting Criterion 2, 3, and 4. Considering the fact that meeting any one of the criteria is enough to satisfy the qualification of notability, the article's quality is significantly above par. Keeping this article will certainly be a positive contribution to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihwaseong (talk • contribs) 08:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep I am a student at Ewha Womans University and glad to find Wikipedia article on one of our professors. It was probably written by one of my classmates. The professor had an assignment a couple years ago where students had to contribute to knowledge by adding an article related to globalization. That made more students interested in helping Wikipedia. Now somebody made an article about the professor and I don't understand why you would want to delete it when it is written and sourced much better than many Wikipedia articles written about professors in the US. This professor is well known in the foreign policy discipline and is one of the best teachers at a top school in Asia and also the largest women's university. Clearly the subject and also the professionalism of the writing and citations meet Wikipedia standards. Please keep the article.--203.255.190.57 (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep This article on Leif-Eric Easley meets the criterion for notability(academic) sufficiently enough. Also, I find this article very helpful in a sense that it gives well-organized information about his works and biography. The notability test, also called as the professor test, asks the academic to be someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education and here academic notability refers to being known for such engagement. Most academics are or have been faculty members (professors) at colleges or universities. Also, many academics hold or have held academic or research positions in various academic research institutes. Leif-Eric Easley is a professor of Ewha University which is one of the high ranking universities in the Republic of Korea. Currently, he is a researcher in the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, which is a prominent think tank in Korea. Working as a member of the Asan Institute, Dr.Easley contributes to policy formation and enrichment of understanding on the international relations. Considering these facts, this article on Leif-Eric Easley meets the guideline for the Professor test. Moving on to the specific criteria, Wikipedia requires the Academics to meet any ONE of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. I find Dr.Easley meeting two specific criteria, #4 and #7. On #4. Dr.Easley passionately writes and publishes articles for the better understanding of international relations in Asia. There is no doubt that his hard work is making a significant impact in the area of higher education. Furthermore,consistently interacting and working with other scholars, he is affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. On #7. Not only as a Professor of Ewha, but also as a person, Dr.Easley is a inspiring mentor. He encourages and helps students to be active member of the society. In this regard, the person has made substantial impact outside academia. He inspires young people who will be the next generations of the society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhkyuri (talk • contribs) 22:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep The entry is about a well-known professor in Korea. He is one of the younger voices that is actually influential in the policy debates over security in East Asia. The article appears well documented with inline citations, and seems to reference reliable, published sources.--115.140.90.112 (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep This article is about a well-known professor in South Korea.
According to the criteria mentioned in WP:PROF, the article qualifies for #2-4 at least.
2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
3. a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor
4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
And each statements are supported with reliable sources in the article.User:Ewha_ohsoo (Talk) 12:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.142.231.90 (talk) [reply]

Comment I think later today I'll take a look at all of those sources, and see if there's enough for an article. Howicus (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previously Howicus had commented that the person is "next to nothing to establish notability," mentioning the "mixed bag of passing mentions, minor awards, and short bios" as his reasons. Though this comment has been removed, I would still like to comment, as I think it would be helpful for the future. In order to support this statement, Howicus would be better advised to show that his personal definition of what constitutes one's notability (e.g. what does he consider "minor" and "do next nothing"?) necessarily coincides with that provided by Wikipedia (please refer to the notability criteria linked in my top comment). As he mentions "mixed bag of passing mentions, minor awards, and short bios," which in no way is in itself a supporting example but rather another subjective statement, what must first be established to make his case is to provide from which standpoint he considers these awards in any way "minor," and then to list the qualities about the awards (the criteria for rewarding the award, what honors are related to the award, the impact of the award, etc.) that fail to sufficiently meet the criteria provided by Wikipedia. Moreover, what about the short bios meet Wikipedia's criteria? If the bios were three sentences longer, for instance, would that represent a more notable achievement? If Nelson Mandela only had one line in his bio, saying something about fought for men's freedom, would that make him less notable? Furthermore, if Howicus' belief is that the citations/reference work in Dr. Easley's articles are insufficient and use that as his rationale for deletion of this article, then it is his burden of proof, not that of those arguing for keeping this article, to show that they are indeed insufficient (low h-score). Without further clarification, I'm afraid to point out that Howicus' statements do not successfully form a contributing argument.In-young Esther Park (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)In-young Esther Park[reply]
Reply First, a minor point: the comment you're referring to wasn't removed, it's right below this comment. Second, the burden of proof is not in any way on me: see WP:BURDEN. Third, I'm sure that Dr. Easley did a fine job in writing his articles, but the articles say nothing about Dr. Easley, and do not help to establish notability. Howicus (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply First, my bad about thinking that the comment was deleted! The editing page is getting more crowdy. Second, WP:BURDEN is not referring to the burden of evidence in the circumstance of a discussion on the deletion of the article. The purpose of the verifiability page is to refer the editors, in drafting their articles for entry in Wikipedia, to cases in which, when the administrators of Wikipedia challenges the verifiability of the sources an editor cites, the editor is to provide evidence of the verifiability of the sources not the administrators. However, in this case, we are not debating the verifiability of a source itself, but sustainbility of your own statements. If you were to make a clear, contributing case, you should be able to provide substantive and specific evidence as to why your statements are helpful in this discussion. Therefore, under the circumstances of having a debate, not in drafting an entry, the burden of proof lies with you. As to your third point, please see my reply at the end of this page.In-young Esther Park (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)In-young Esther Park[reply]
  • Delete - Ok, I have taken a look at every single reference (whew) in the article as of this revision [1]. About 80-90% of the references are papers, articles, letters, etc, written by Easley, which do next to nothing to establish his notability. The rest are a mixed bag of passing mentions, minor awards, and short bios on university sites. There isn't enough on the guy to meet WP:PROF, or even WP:GNG.Howicus (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further CommentThe people who are !voting Keep say that he meets the criteria, but just saying it isn't enough. Independent and Reliable sources are needed to show that he actually does meet any of the WP:PROF criteria. Howicus (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would Howicus please show with substantive, detailed support what exactly he means by not meeting "independent and reliable sources"? As others who have argued for keeping this article have taken the effort to provide detailed reasoning referring to the specifics of Wikipedia's criteria, I believe it would be at least respectful of anyone arguing otherwise to take equally laborious effort in proving his case. According to Wikipedia's criteria, all of sixty-seven citations come from independent and reliable sources as I have shown in my comment on top. If Howicus believes otherwise, I recommend that he refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion. I particularly would like to call his attention to a paragraph under "Discussion": "Always explain your reasoning. This allows others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered. It also allows administrators to determine at the end of the discussion, whether your concerns have been addressed and whether your comments still apply if the article was significantly rewritten during the discussion period."In-young Esther Park (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)In-young Esther Park[reply]
Reply Most of the sources are not independent of Easley, because they were written by him. Howicus (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Does Howicus believe John Mearsheimer is not a notable academic, as all citations are sources written by Dr. Mearsheimer himself? Please take a look at the circumstances in which the parts are cited. The citations are used to direct the readers to the person's work, which clearly warrants original citation. If I were forced to believe President Obama was not a notable figure, I would point Wikipedians to the citations on his Wikipedia page which include his own work. Moreover, see my comment for "keep" at the very top. I have listed several independent sources off the top of my head. Should Howicus wish that these merge with the existing citations in the article, please let the editor know. In-young Esther Park (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)In-young Esther Park[reply]


  • Keep. Stephenb's comment seems to take issue with this being a younger professor, and he is right to imply that consideration for notability should not include a individual's potential - however impressive their career trajectory might be - absent documented accomplishments. But the professor in question does indeed meet several of the notability requirements specified in WP:PROF, as clearly documented in the other "keep" votes above and in the entry itself.

Howicus makes a good point that many of the citations provided in the entry link to articles written by the professor himself. But there is clearly a reason for this: the entry is attributing academic arguments and policy positions to a living person, and according to Wikipedia's policies, such attribution needs to be documented. What better way of corroborating someone's position than by providing links to the full text of what they wrote/said? Moreover, many of the links provided in the references section of the entry are NOT written by the professor. By quick glance I count over 20 external sources which verify the content of the article in terms of the professor's personal history, educational contributions and policy impact. The entry thus has much more rigor (and offers more academically useful and policy-relevant content) than most Wikipedia pages I've seen about professors. Let's look at some examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_A.C._Brown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjay_Swami http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mucahit_Bilici http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxanne_Dunbar-Ortiz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heleen_Mees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Christophe_Valtat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Perreau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Brennan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Marvin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Lui_(professor)

There are indeed hundreds of examples, and I'm not suggesting that any of the above articles be deleted. Rather, they ought to be improved to meet the standards of the very entry we are debating here. Many Wikipedia pages about professors which have been up on the site without controversy for a long time basically draw upon a bio about that person posted on their institution's website. This present entry clearly goes into much more detail, not only about biographical information, but also on why this academic is making notable contributions to scholarship and policy, and it does so while citing more external references than many existing entries about professors. So I don't think this entry can be evaluated in a vacuum. Look at many other existing pages about professors, you'll see how this entry is above par in quality while meeting the notability standards set out in Wikipedia's guidelines.

I do have a suggestion for the entry's improvement and I'd appreciate it if Stephenb, Howicus and others could weigh in on this point. Perhaps it would help to have separate reference sections for external sources that corroborate facts about the professor (references) and links to articles written by the professor that cite his academic arguments and policy views (notes). See for example the article about this assistant professor at Tufts who is in a similar field:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sung-Yoon_Lee

--203.255.184.220 (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)— 203.255.184.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Slightly baffled, as I said nothing about his age, which wasn't the reason for nominating this article. As for other professors: whether or not they are notable enough for an article is immaterial: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I still think this one fails WP:PROF Stephenb (Talk) 07:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The more I see of this the debate, the more I think this a strong keep. I hope those who have expressed pro-deletion views will more adequately address the points made by others in this discussion, including my replies below.
Stephenb expresses his opinion that the article doesn't meet WP:PROF criteria. He says he sees nothing notable. But I do not see elaboration or evidence for his opinion. Meanwhile, In-young Esther Park, Yhkyuri, Mihwaseong, Ewha_ohsoo and other anonymous users have cited Wikipedia guidelines and external, independent, reliable sources. If you do not agree with the editors who vote to keep the article, why don't you address their arguments and evidence? Clearly the article itself includes external references. Clearly the professor is widely cited (In-young Esther Park provides several examples which she says are just a sampling - academic book, journals, policy report - in addition to what is referenced in the entry itself).
Stephenb references WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as if it invalidates points in my previous post, but in fact, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS supports my argument: "When used properly, a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain. Wikipedia has, unintentionally, set a precedent for inclusion or exclusion when notability is contested…and in these situations this type of argument may be worth introducing…identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability…and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." Let me be clear: my point was not only that there are hundreds of articles about professors that are not as well written and sourced as this one (that alone would be weak justification to include an article). Rather, my point is that some contributors to this discussion may not be properly applying Wikipedia's standards. I provided examples of other professors' pages which Stephenb summarily dismissed, but I am yet to be convinced otherwise.
To Bearian's comment that the professor is not tenured, where in WP:PROF does it say that tenure is a necessary requirement for notability? WP:PROF states that "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following [nine] conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." Yhkyuri, Mihwaseong and Ewha_ohsoo have addressed this professor's qualifications on several of the nine criteria, even though any single one would be sufficient. The entry itself has many reliable external sources cited (prestigious universities, think tanks, journals, media organizations) and In-young Esther Park's lengthy post above mentions additional external sources that cite the professor's published work:
-- John Ikenberry, Michael Mastanduno and William Wohlforth, International Relations Theory and the Consequences of Unipolarity (Cambridge University Press, 2012). -- Jing Men, “The EU and China: Mismatched Partners?” Journal of Contemporary China, Vol. 21 (2012), pp. 333-349. -- Taku Tamaki, “’Surrounding Areas’ and The Recalibration of Japan’s Threat Perception,” East Asia, Vol. 29 (2012), pp. 187-213. -- Robert Weiner and Yuki Tatsumi, “How Does the Democratic Party of Japan Affect Security Policy?” U.S. Naval Postgraduate School Report, No. 2012-008 (2012), pp. 1-51.
In addition, while Google Scholar is by no means complete (like other citation indexes and search engines, it misses a lot of academic references) this simple search: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Leif-Eric+Easley yields 77 results, which given the professor's unusual name, all seem to refer to him and probably represents only a portion of the academic mentions of the professor's work. Is that Nobel Prize economist level notability? Of course not. But we need to proceed according to stated and hitherto applied Wikipedia standards, and this article clearly meets at least one (and probably several) of those criteria.
Finally, what about my suggestion that the original editor separate reference sections for external sources that corroborate facts about the professor (references) and links to articles written by the professor that cite his academic arguments and policy views (notes)? This seems to be effective in the case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sung-Yoon_Lee and in my opinion would address Howicus' concern. --203.255.184.220 (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)— 203.255.184.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


Comment I must say it strikes me that proponents of this entry provide reasoned arguments based on Wikipedia policies and offer clear evidence to independent verifiable sources, whereas those who post comments against the article tend to do so without clear justification, without adequately considering the evidence presented by proponents, and while making unprofessional and even insulting comments. If you read Wikipedia's guidelines, it is discussed how experienced editors should welcome and mentor junior editors, treat them with respect, and look to improve contributions rather than dismissing other's efforts. I hope we can raise the quality of discussion a bit here. A good place to start would be for opponents of the article to engage the proponents' arguments and evidence and give suggestions for improvement. --121.128.1.24 (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)— 121.128.1.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


  • Keep. I am a Korean foreign policy expert based in Seoul. I know Prof. Easley's work, so in addition to the reliable external sources provided by other discussants here, I can attest to the professor's notability. He is involved in many high level "Track 2" negotiations about security in Northeast Asia. He can be found at many of the most important policy discussions and academic exchanges that take place in Seoul. But don't take my word for it, check the Korean media. Some of you may not be familar with Korean media, so let me give you a couple links.
First, on occasion of President Obama's reelection, Easley was quoted as a major analyst of U.S.-Korea relations along with another professor from Seoul National University: http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2962015.
Second, the president of Harvard University recently visited Korea to give a big speech. Of all the high level people involved in President Faust's visit (ambassadors, university presidents, business leaders), any of whom could have been mentioned, this news article mentions only President Faust, Prof. Park and Prof. Easley: http://www.dhnews.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=23121.
In my opinion, the discussion here should not be about whether to delete the article, but rather how it can be improved. For example, I don't think many people care about Easley's "early life." That section can probably be discarded. What makes Easley notable is his academic research that is actually having impact in the foreign policy community. And those sections of the Wikipedia article are excellent. --121.128.1.24 (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)— 121.128.1.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



  • Revisions implemented. Please note that in response to several comments and suggestions on this discussion page, the following revisions have been made to the entry:
1. In addition to existing citations, further independent and reliable sources were added, including those suggested on the discussion page showing that the professor's work is widely cited and is assigned reading at other universities, and that he is quoted in the media.
2. To avoid confusion about external sources that mention the professor vs. external sources representing the professor's own research and policy input, there are now two separate sections for the links for inline citations: "References" and "Notes".
3. Hyperlinks were added to the "Publications" section.
4. The "early life" section was removed because some editors argued it does not help establish notability and may not be of general interest.
5. Minor edits were made throughout the text to make the article read more professionally and smoothly.
I hope you will find that I have addressed all concrete suggestions offered for the article thus far; I am happy to make other specific edits and consider other specific recommendations. Regarding the general concerns raised by some posts in this discussion, I believe you will find those well addressed in the extensive comments to keep the article posted above. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewha ohsoo (talk • contribs) 06:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too junior to have much chance of passing WP:PROF, not described in enough depth in published news articles (as opposed to being quoted or being the author of the articles) to pass WP:GNG, too larded with irrelevant detail to make any other notability evident, and the sockpuppet party in evidence here isn't helping either. (Isn't it time to take this to WP:SPI already?) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. The link you gave on lard (wikipuffery) talks about the use of "peacock adjectives" and footnotes to non-reliable sources (MySpace, Facebook, etc.) or to sources that do not specifically mention the subject. I would like you to acknowledge that the present article does no such thing. Your accusation is unfounded. If you look at the citations, they reference independent reliable sources, from top universities and think tanks, to reputable journals, to well-known media sources. Also, could you please address the point how WP:PROF requires meeting ONE of the NINE criteria listed in the guidelines and how multiple independent users in this discussion have provided reasoning and evidence (with weblinks) above supporting notability? I am afraid that people voting delete here tend to misrepresent Wikipedia guidelines and to dismiss verifiable evidence being provided.In-young Esther Park (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)In-young Esther Park.[reply]
  • Delete Far too junior. Recent PhD with minimal citations in a high-citation field, and the existing article is a great example of excessive promotion. Meat/sockpuppetry in the comments above are amusing but not helpful. RayTalk 14:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Would you care to address how this article compares to many other existing articles about professors? Please see the debate above about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and links to existing examples of articles about professors on Wikipedia. Also, if you compare the present article to others being considered for deletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academics_and_educators) there is no question that this article is of greater merit, both in quality and documentation of notability. I appreciate that users voting 'delete' are interested in maintaining a high bar for Wikipedia articles. But I strongly believe you are misapplying Wikipedia standards - please look at the external evidence being provided and look at other Wikipedia articles in relative comparison. Finally, I would greatly appreciate it if everyone would maintain an air of respect in this discussion by addressing detailed comments rather than making unsubstantiated and insulting remarks.In-young Esther Park (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)In-young Esther Park[reply]


  • Keep. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by the people who use it. It is a special type of website designed to make collaboration easy, called a wiki. Many people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes per hour. All of these changes are recorded in article histories and recent changes.

This is how Wikipedia introduces itself on the introduction page. The idea is to encourage everyone to freely make contributions, but many comments I see here are against the very purpose of Wikipedia. When I first created this article, the idea was to allow people across the world to easily access Professor's articles and publications. Of course, his articles can be easily found via google search but because Wikipedia is such a huge, world-wide encyclopedia, I thought it would be rather weird for Wikipedia not to have an article about a public figure in South Korea. There are many English-speaking users in South Korea who wish to access information about him in English (but there are not that many English profiles in Korean search engines), which is why I thought having this article about Professor in English would be helpful for such people. As he is an influential figure in the field of foreign policy, I cannot agree with some users here who argue that he is "not notable enough" as they do not know anything about him in the first place. I also cannot agree with 'sockpuppet party' because I know I've made some comments without logging in but it was NOT to pretend as if I'm a different user. As for the other comments made by others, I recognize some of my classmates and they are definetely NOT the same user. I strongly agree with the following comment: "If you read Wikipedia's guidelines, it is discussed how experienced editors should welcome and mentor junior editors, treat them with respect, and look to improve contributions rather than dismissing other's efforts. I hope we can raise the quality of discussion a bit here. A good place to start would be for opponents of the article to engage the proponents' arguments and evidence and give suggestions for improvement." As I'm a junior editor myself, I came here to make contributions to Wikipedia NOT to ruin it. It would be helpful for senior editors here to advise me how to improve my contributions, rather than leaving negative/unhelpful comments that discourage junior editors from making contributions to better Wikipedia. I've made some revisions based on the helpful suggestions here, thank you. Ewha ohsoo (talk • contribs) 02:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a couple points. First, I don't think anyone here doubts that you are trying to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Second, if Easley is really as well-known as you claim, then it should be easy to find reliable, independent sources about him (not written by him). We shouldn't have to be familiar with Dr. Easley to judge his notability. There is nothing in the sources that shows that Easley meets the criteria in WP:PROF. Wikipedia may seem a bit harsh for new editors at first, but there are reasons behind the rules. Guidelines such as WP:PROF are in place to try to ensure that Wikipedia has only articles about notable subjects. Howicus (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Thank you Howicus. I would like to respond once more regarding notability, and I ask that you consult not only WP:PROF but also other Wikipedia articles about professors (including those linked in the debate above) to see how this article is of greater merit than many long maintained on Wikipedia without controversy. Regarding notability:

-- The professor has over 50 verifiable publications in reputable academic journals, books, policy-relevant journals and widely circulated newspapers (http://dis.ewha.ac.kr/users/ewhadis/faculty/Easley/publications.html). Most pages I've seen on Wikipedia about professors do not demonstrate they are so prolific.

-- The professor's publications are widely cited by scholars in different fields and appear on course syllabi at various institutions (see footnotes 49-57 for examples; there are many more, including in Korean, Japanese and Chinese).

-- His comments on foreign policy are quoted or printed in venues including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the Economist (links provided in article) regarding important foreign policy issues like U.S.-China relations, North Korea, and East Asia's regional security architecture.

-- He participates and has policy impact in high-level track II dialogues (as documented on the Asan Institute website and others including video you can watch).

-- He often gives public lectures, including a keynote speech at a top university in Japan (www.america-kenkyusho.jp/seminar/english.html‎) among many other high profile meetings.

-- The professor's awards, grants and record of affiliation with prestigious educational institutions (UCLA, Harvard, Stanford, Ewha) are documented in the article's citations.

-- He is recognized for excellent teaching and making positive contributions to the curriculum at multiple institutions (again, documented in the article).

-- In addition to being carefully written and sourced, the article includes many references (74 citations and many in-line links - much more than most articles about professors) including citations to the professor's own publications since his academic and policy positions are being referenced.

-- The professor may not be famous (yet), but he is clearly notable in both academic and policy communities, and has a demonstrated history of accomplishment. I don't think Wikipedia is only for older professors whose careers have already peaked. This professor is still on an upward trajectory (increasing in academic and policy impact) which is precisely why his bio is of interest to many younger people in the field.

-- I wish those who have expressed negative views on the entry would grant this article better consideration. I hope you don't stick with a negative vote just to try and win an argument. I ask that you recognize that those who support this article have provided reasoned explanations and extensive supporting evidence using external reliable sources, and that the article has been revised to incorporate constructive feedback. Thank you! Ewha ohsoo (talk • contribs) 02:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about spa. A glance at the history of this page shows that the edit above was made by 210.124.19.107, an IP spa. After I put an spa template on the edit Ewha ohsoo removed it and substituted her own name Xxanthippe (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Apologies. I forgot to log-in and sign my name. I'll be more aware of it next time.Ewha ohsoo (talk)
  • Comment. The claims in the wall of text above are beside the point. The link at the top to Google scholar shows cites of 29, 6, 1. By the standards in these pages this is its totally inadequate to pass WP:Prof#1 and shows that hardly any notice has been taken yet by others of the subject's work however much he may have produced. Editors should note the statement at WP:Prof Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Reply.Thank you for your response. But I would disagree with you that my comments are beside the point. Google Scholar is not the only way to establish the importance of publications - Wikipedia guidelines actually say to use Google Scholar numbers "with caution" given that it misses many citations (see above) especially when an author is being cited in Korean, Japanese and Chinese sources. What is more, editors (above) and the article itself have provided evidence for notability in other criteria areas in addition to publications. I do not understand why some users appear to put a higher bar in front of some professor pages than others. There are hundreds of pages about professors on Wikipedia which are clearly lower in written quality, notability and documentation (see examples linked above). The article under debate here has been written according to Wikipedia guidelines and rigorously sourced, and it clearly contributes to the body of useful, verifiable, and interesting material on Wikipedia. Ewha ohsoo (talk)
Again, read over WP:OSE. It's true that argue nets based on OSE are occasionally valid, but this is not one of those times. We are only considering this article. The existence or condition of other articles has no relevance in this discussion. Howicus (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leif-Eric_Easley&oldid=1121694880"