- 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 no consensus. W.marsh 01:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Academic CV; not enough to meet WP:BIO or the proposed WP:PROF. --Nehwyn 17:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have opted not to userfy this (apparently) autobio since that creates a redirect, and thus effectively leavs a vanity page reachable through ordinary encyclopaedic search. --Nehwyn 17:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am satisfied with the proofs of notability emerged during this debate. --Nehwyn 10:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete nn per WP:PROF.Wired article establishes notabilty. Leibniz 10:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vanity is not the sole issue here. I share nearly all of a name with another academic, who has apparently had his Prof. Bio placed here (Wikipedia). A search of the literature would confirm one of the most highly cited authors in the field of Information Science (according to SCI and several research papers on the topic), a number of awards, and a biography that appeared in Who's Who in America, and in Who's Who in the World. But, in the final analysis, of course, it is up to you. Drop me a line please. Paul B. Kantor 17:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello there. There are two issues worth mentioning here:
- 1) You are writing about yourself. Wikipedia strongly deprecates this typoe of conflict of interest.
- 2) As the creator of the article, the burden of demonstrating notability lies on you. If literature confirms notability, please provide references according to the WP:BIO and WP:PROF guidelines (you may also want to read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE). Thanks! --Nehwyn 17:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's keep it. It's notable academician, what else do we need? --Yuriy Lapitskiy 17:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- References! Notability is not "vouched for" by oneself. --Nehwyn 20:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A search for "Paul B. Kantor" in Google Scholar indicates that this person qualifies as an expert in in his field. Stammer 17:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - run-of-the-mill professor. Dylan 23:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In addition to the scholarly evidence, take a look at the article in Wired Magazine. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Scholarly evidence does indeed seem to exist. Believe he meets WP:PROF. Shimeru 00:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Full professors at major universities are notable per se. In addition, he has a long list of publications in refereed scientific journals and 2 articles about him in major publications. Good God, do you have any idea how far below this the "run of the mill professor" falls??? Edison 06:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The article is essentially the guy's resume (CV): education, membership, grants, publications. Just about every single full professor in a hard science department at any of the top 100 U.S. colleges and universities (not to mention foreign universities) has something similar - that would be 10,000 or more, easily. The Wired Magazine article is the sole possible discriminator here - and it's from 1998, about an approach for labeling information on the Web, an approach that hasn't implemented in the nine years since the article was published and (my best guess) never will be. Not enough stuff outside academia, in my opinion - someone interested in him should just go to his web page at Rutgers. John Broughton | Talk 18:18, 17 November 2006 (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.