Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliot McGucken (2nd nomination)

Elliot McGucken

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was sent to DRV by an IP, whose comments are reproduced below. However, the last discussion was almost two years ago, and I believe the DRV was started to get around the need to create a new page for AFD. Procedural nomination only. Courcelles 11:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 12: No consensus: Nominated for deletion for failing notability guidelines and possessing few notable sources. Subject interfered with AFD discussion by abusing sockpuppets, making a valid decision impossible. The page has remained an orphan for nearly 2 years and the few reputable sources cited mention subject only in passing. 161.253.51.49 (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given that the debate was over 18 months ago I can't imagine DRV is going to overturn the outcome, particularly since the outcome was no-consensus, so there isn't much of a bar to you just starting a new AFD debate. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt-this just drips with self-promotion.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - this article should have not survived the 1st afd nearly all of the "keep"v otes for from obvious sockpuppets of the articles subject repeating the same words word for word wordily over again. User:Smith Jones 14:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The article is short and concise and backed up with sources ranging from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal to Popular Science to Business Week to major universities to professional business publications and scientific journals/sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.172.131 (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 16:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So he received some news coverage for his thesis research, and he's written some books. However, he appears not to have stayed in academia (Gscholar h-index is in the single digits), and while the highest paper received 201 citations, that's his only highly cited paper, in collaboration with 9 other authors, and he was listed fairly far behind. So there's no pass of WP:PROF. His work as an author is insufficient to pass WP:CREATIVE, and there's no significant coverage of the subject per WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 16:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 16:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Researched McGucken and found multiple new references which had not previously been included on his page from The New York Times, Business Week, The Triangle Business Journal, the Arts Entrepreneur Educators network, and major university websites pertaining to his academic work for which he received grants for a novel class/festival. Added a new section to his page pertaining to this research/academic development. May need editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didoloves (talk • contribs) 17:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC) — Didoloves (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment it occurs to m e that this article seems o attract suckpuppets like a month to the flame. it seems as if te only appropriate way to deal with this blatant abusive attempt to grime the system is to not only delete this article but block its recreation by its subject. User:Smith Jones 20:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply I think this is a bad way of handling sockpuppets. After all it's not the articles fault. The reasons for creation or deletion of an article should only include WP article guidelines, not user guidelines. If you suspect sockpuppets (which I think your right to do so) open a sockpuppet case.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 22:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply excuse me please but the sockpuppet issue is obviously distinct from the deletion case. this article subject is clearly unnotable. however, the problem that i have noticed upon reading the prior WP:AFD is that, even though the article is poorly written and the sources presented are either owned by the subject or only briefly mentioning his name, he got the article to stay by creating a swarm of anonymous ip addresses to repeatedly vote Keep with the same dubious rationality. this is clearly gaming the system and i hope that the admin in this case does not give

each copy-and-pasted nonsense a separate consideration as if they were from multiple poeple. User:Smith Jones 23:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like well sourced article to me with multiple references from the new york times business week wall street journal the university of north carolina at chapel hill pepperdine university the charlotte business journal the triangle business journal professional ieee publications professional business journal the arts entrepreneurship educator's network popular science crc scientific publications and more in cluding north carolina state university and business week magazine.

The major sock puppet seems to be the anonymous ip who obviously has an emotional investment in the deletion of this article. They are likely masquerading as the anonymous jones smiths above and they originally resubmitted the deletion request planning to come here and accuse the new york times and wall street journal and popular science and business week of sock puppetry, when in reality smith jones is the anonymous sockpuppet submitting requests to delete from anonymous ips after failing to get the article deleted before.

This constitutes abuse and they should be banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.4.49 (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]