Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Schweitzer: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:08, 15 November 2007

Jeff Schweitzer

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). A ecis^Brievenbus 00:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 01:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Delete: Agree with Rjd0060. Also, looks like self promotion. Andante1980 10:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independant coverage. Epbr123 15:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete The most shameless self promotion I have seen yet. --Crusio 23:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Schweitzer (talk • contribs) 23:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is perhaps a minor difference between a biography of a scientist agreed up on by friend and foe to have had a huge influence on contemporary biology and an autobiography from somebody that fails every standard of notability. --Crusio 00:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment statements from Crusio such as "fails every standard of notability" indicate a lack of objectivity in his or her review. Dismissing the Journal of Comparative Physiology, for example, as an "unimportant journal" indicates a serious misunderstanding of the subject,and again, lack of objectivity. Dismissing my contributions as a neuroscientist seems odd without reviewing the conclusions of my papers (neuronal plasticity in adults, conservation of central nervous system organization throughout evolutionary history). The importance of holding the position of Chief Environmental Officer, with a half-billion budget, overseeing 3000 projects; and holding a high-level White House position may be argued among reasonable people, but certainly rises above the notion of "failing every standard of notability." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Schweitzer (talk • contribs) 01:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record: noone has said that you were "a minor civil servant". I am the only one who addressed that issue, and I have stated that your activities in the civil service do not appear to have been sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Whether the aviation publications are peer reviewed or not is not relevant, what matters is whether they are notable enough for Wikipedia. A notable non-peer-reviewed publication counts towards someone's notability, a non-notable peer-reviewed publication doesn't. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is not notable about the following aviation magazines, in which I have published: Flying, Plane & Pilot, Private Pilot, Twin & Turbine, IFR? Those are THE primary aviation publications, and I have published in each. Back to the civil servant article; at the White House, I was one person away from the president, through the president's science adviser; I negotiated the first treaty between the United States and Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union; I created the International Megascience Forum at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; your dismal of these as non-notable are not supportable by an reasonable criteria. If autobiography is such an offense, I can have the subject resubmitted by others. Plenty are willing to do so. Finally, one comment I found particularly odd; a Google search found me to have plenty of publications, so the conclusion from that was that I was good at self-promoting!Jeff Schweitzer 02:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Jeff Schweitzer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Schweitzer (talk • contribs) 00:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete While this article may currently lack some direct links to secondary sources, it seems they should be easy enough to find online using search. A simple re-write to remove the WP:peacock terms and add a little more neutrality to the article will make it much better. As far as notability I see no difference between this article's notability and any of the articles on individuals that held past U.S. government offices such as those listed in WP:Office_of_Science_and_Technology_Policy. In addition, I find that this article holds as much, if not more, weight than those as Jeff Schweitzer is an active and internationally recognized specialist in his field.Digitalr 01:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted.

Comment Those people were science advisors to the US President. Seems a step higher than this guy. And in which of his claimed fields is Schweitzer and "internationally recognized specialist"? Certainly not in Neuroscience as already remarked above.... There is just too much hyperbole and not enough substance. "3000 projects in 82 countries"? According to this article, he joined the State Department in 1991 and left the following year. That's almost 10 projects per day, weekends included. I'm envious, I need the 3-year working days that this guy somehow has found, too! --Crusio 01:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I joined the State Department in 1987 at the Agency for International Development (an arm of U.S. State). I was responsible for 3000 projects when I consolidated several positions into the one of Chief Environmental Officer, a position I occupied until going to the White House. Your hostility is coming through in ever-increasing doses of misinformation. Jeff Schweitzer 01:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Jeff SchweitzerJeff Schweitzer 01:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And no, others listed under OSTP were not above me, other than a few such as Bromley or Marburg. Jeff Schweitzer 01:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Jeff Schweitzer[reply]

Delete As self-vanity. Also, look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jeff Schweitzer. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 01:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 :*'''Comment''' statements from Crusio such as "fails every standard of notability" indicate a lack of objectivity in his or her review.  Dismissing the Journal of Comparative Physiology, for example, as an "unimportant journal" indicates a serious misunderstanding of the subject,and again, lack of objectivity.  Dismissing my contributions as a neuroscientist seems odd without reviewing the conclusions of my papers (neuronal plasticity in adults, conservation of central nervous system organization throughout evolutionary history). The importance of holding the position of Chief Environmental Officer, with a half-billion budget, overseeing 3000 projects; and holding a high-level White House position may be argued among reasonable people, but certainly rises above the notion of "failing every standard of notability."  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jeff Schweitzer|Jeff Schweitzer]] ([[User talk:Jeff Schweitzer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jeff Schweitzer|contribs]]) 01:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 :*Just for the record: noone has said that you were "a minor civil servant". I am the only one who addressed that issue, and I have stated that your activities in the civil service do not appear to have been sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Whether the aviation publications are peer reviewed or not is not relevant, what matters is whether they are notable enough for Wikipedia. A notable non-peer-reviewed publication counts towards someone's notability, a non-notable peer-reviewed publication doesn't. [[Special:Contributions/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Aecis|Brievenbus]]</sup> 00:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
-:*'''Comment''' What is not notable about the following aviation magazines, in which I have published:  Flying, Plane & Pilot, Private Pilot, Twin & Turbine, IFR?  Those are THE primary aviation publications, and I have published in each.  Back to the civil servant article; at the White House, I was one person away from the president, through the president's science adviser; I negotiated the first treaty between the United States and Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union; I created the International Megascience Forum at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; your dismal of these as non-notable are not supportable by an reasonable criteria.  If autobiography is such an offense, I can have the subject resubmitted by others.  Plenty are willing to do so.  Finally, one comment I found particularly odd; a Google search found me to have plenty of publications, so the conclusion from that was that I good at self-promoting!  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jeff Schweitzer|Jeff Schweitzer]] ([[User talk:Jeff Schweitzer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jeff Schweitzer|contribs]]) 00:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+:*'''Comment''' What is not notable about the following aviation magazines, in which I have published:  Flying, Plane & Pilot, Private Pilot, Twin & Turbine, IFR?  Those are THE primary aviation publications, and I have published in each.  Back to the civil servant article; at the White House, I was one person away from the president, through the president's science adviser; I negotiated the first treaty between the United States and Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union; I created the International Megascience Forum at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; your dismal of these as non-notable are not supportable by an reasonable criteria.  If autobiography is such an offense, I can have the subject resubmitted by others.  Plenty are willing to do so.  Finally, one comment I found particularly odd; a Google search found me to have plenty of publications, so the conclusion from that was that I was good at self-promoting![[User:Jeff Schweitzer|Jeff Schweitzer]] 02:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Jeff Schweitzer  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jeff Schweitzer|Jeff Schweitzer]] ([[User talk:Jeff Schweitzer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jeff Schweitzer|contribs]]) 00:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 *'''Do Not Delete''' While this article may currently lack some direct links to secondary sources, it seems they should be easy enough to find online using search.  A simple re-write to remove the [[WP:peacock terms]] and add a little more neutrality to the article will make it much better. As far as notability I see no difference between this article's notability and any of the articles on individuals that held past U.S. government offices such as those listed in [[WP:Office_of_Science_and_Technology_Policy]]. In addition, I find that this article holds as much, if not more, weight than those as Jeff Schweitzer is an active and internationally recognized specialist in his field.[[User:Digitalr|Digitalr]] 01:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)