Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Schweitzer: Difference between revisions
Mscuthbert (talk | contribs) →Jeff Schweitzer: weak delete |
subject of deletion makes comments |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
*'''Delete''' The most shameless self promotion I have seen yet. --[[User:Crusio|Crusio]] 23:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' The most shameless self promotion I have seen yet. --[[User:Crusio|Crusio]] 23:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Weak Delete''', it's really bad as self-promotion, but I'm shocked that you haven't see worse, Crusio. There isn't even a section on a conspiracy to keep the subject quiet! :) (Seriously, it reads like a self-promoting marketing text for the subject, but at least it makes some real notability claims, cites specific verifiable sources, etc. But like the others above, I just don't see it passing WP:N even after the hyperbole is removed). -- [[User:Mscuthbert|Myke Cuthbert]] <small>[[User_talk:Mscuthbert|(talk)]]</small> 04:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Weak Delete''', it's really bad as self-promotion, but I'm shocked that you haven't see worse, Crusio. There isn't even a section on a conspiracy to keep the subject quiet! :) (Seriously, it reads like a self-promoting marketing text for the subject, but at least it makes some real notability claims, cites specific verifiable sources, etc. But like the others above, I just don't see it passing WP:N even after the hyperbole is removed). -- [[User:Mscuthbert|Myke Cuthbert]] <small>[[User_talk:Mscuthbert|(talk)]]</small> 04:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Do Not Delete''',I would say some comments are simply incorrect. Minor civil servant? At the State Department, I oversaw 3000 projects in 82 countries; in the White House, I was in charge of International Science and Technology. Aviation publications? These are not typically peer-reviewed, so searching for such is off base. Neurobiology: those journals in which I published are indeed peer reviewed, and are considered leading journals in the field. The entry is biographical, but so is the entry for Richard Dawkins, for example. I could get a colleague to make the entries on my behalf, so the fact that I have made them myself seems an irrelevant observation. |
Revision as of 23:59, 14 November 2007
- Jeff Schweitzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This article is an autobiography/resume of Jeff Schweitzer (talk · contribs). He has made no edits outside this article. The other major contributor is Digitalr (talk · contribs), an unidentified user who also hasn't made any edits outside this article. This article was originally nominated for speedy deletion per A7, but the nom was (rightfully) declined, because there were at least some assertions of notability. However, when looking into the assertions more closely, not much remains. He is a scientist, but he doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). He was a civil servant, but not a very notable one. I think the highest he achieved was the position of "Assistant Director for International Affairs in the Office of Science and Technology Policy", basically the second in line at a department of an advisory body. His aviation-related publications were either in his own magazine or in non-notable magazines. The scientific publications do carry some weight, but it doesn't appear to be sufficient weight to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). AecisBrievenbus 00:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 01:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Nice and full resume, but thats not what Wikipedia is for. I agree with the nom, and would say this does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). - Rjd0060 05:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Agree with above; effectively written cv. Judging by the results of a google search he seems to be an accomplished self publicist with a large catalogue of publications to his name, however that alone does not make him notable. --Geoff Riley 06:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Agree with Rjd0060. Also, looks like self promotion. Andante1980 10:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No independant coverage. Epbr123 15:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The neurobiology section at least is making a great deal out of a few minor contributions in relatively unimportant journals. DGG (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The most shameless self promotion I have seen yet. --Crusio 23:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete, it's really bad as self-promotion, but I'm shocked that you haven't see worse, Crusio. There isn't even a section on a conspiracy to keep the subject quiet! :) (Seriously, it reads like a self-promoting marketing text for the subject, but at least it makes some real notability claims, cites specific verifiable sources, etc. But like the others above, I just don't see it passing WP:N even after the hyperbole is removed). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete,I would say some comments are simply incorrect. Minor civil servant? At the State Department, I oversaw 3000 projects in 82 countries; in the White House, I was in charge of International Science and Technology. Aviation publications? These are not typically peer-reviewed, so searching for such is off base. Neurobiology: those journals in which I published are indeed peer reviewed, and are considered leading journals in the field. The entry is biographical, but so is the entry for Richard Dawkins, for example. I could get a colleague to make the entries on my behalf, so the fact that I have made them myself seems an irrelevant observation.