Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Robert S. Zimmer

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. No prejudice to recreation of a more balanced article. L Faraone 02:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Robert S. Zimmer[edit]

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

Article created by a SPA account. Article "for hire" per author's own statement that "I am editing on behalf of ACM. The family of Dr. Zimmer asked us to get the article started on Wikipedia and they provided the content." No specific reliable third party sources are provided to support notability. May meet notability requirements but the method by which it was created is not in the spirit of the project. Possibly delete or stubbify? -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 17:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I'm sure he was a swell guy, but we don't accept paid memorial articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a memorial. Dr. Zimmer has made a significant contribution that is part of an enduring historical record. He was a part of the founding of four(4) community colleges. The information in the article summarizes, informs, and references, it does not promote or sell. It states facts; they are not vague or general.

I provided references/links about Allegany College of Maryland, Kankakee Community College and Passaic County Community College. The information is not biased. I do not understand how an article can be referenced or linked if someone that is connected to the person/thing can not provide that information. I was getting more citations/links/references to verify the article on an ongoing basis until I was blocked.

Not sure what is meant by "Article for hire". There has been no compensation or gain from creating this article other than knowledge. What is the "spirit of Wikipedia/the project"? ACM Content Editor (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As of earlier today you claimed that "I am employed by ACM as their Marketing Content editor". I'm assuming that ACM pays their Marketing Content editor with more that just 'knowledge'. Wikipedia does not accept "Marketing Content" and spam of any kind is strongly discouraged. Even if you're telling the truth and Marketing Content editor is some sort of unpaid position, it's still a grossly unacceptable conflict of interest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Full of unsourced detail and promotional language, and the paid marketing aspect makes it doubly suspect. As a president of multiple colleges there's a strong possibility that he passes WP:PROF but any encyclopedia article needs to be built on a base of neutrality, by someone far enough removed from the subject to avoid using inside knowledge or writing a hagiography. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, per David Eppstein. There's a chance Wikipedia should have an article about this subject, but it certainly shouldn't have an article about this subject written by someone with a strong conflict of interest. They've chosen just about the worst way of getting an article up, which is unfortunate, but I'm sure there is a non-COI editor out there willing to put the effort into a new article, properly sourced and with verifiable content. Stalwart111 07:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Stubbify and Rename without "Dr." for the reasons given by David Eppstein. I don't like the way it was created, but none of the argument seems to go for deletion. The article is marginally supported by independent sources. David Eppstein admits regarding Dr. Zimmer there's a strong possibility that he passes WP:PROF. --Bejnar (talk) 19:15, 8 July 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.