Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graeme Davis (mediaevalist)

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 keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Davis (mediaevalist)

This is one of a series of articles initiated by Graeme Davis, promoting the on-line journals of which Graeme Davis is the editor and the institute which sponsors those journals. SteveMcCluskey 21:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for deletion as the whole series constitutes self-promotion.

--SteveMcCluskey 21:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In further checking Graeme Davis's edits, I found his self-promotion extended to modifying Template:UK-nonfiction-writer-stub so it became a promotion of his name. SteveMcCluskey 23:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like some kind of mistake on his part, as a new WPer. Steve Dufour 03:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete for Davis; Google & Amazon show that he has written all those books, which would imply he's a major expert on Old English, but I can't find any significant sources or awards to satisfy WP:PROF. Delete the assorted journals as all too specialist to be of general interest - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 01:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Google: "Graeme Davis" site:open.ac.uk - did not match any documents. Pete.Hurd 02:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not so surprising; a lot of semi-retired and independent academics do some work with the OU to keep themselves "in the loop" but don't appear on their staff lists - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please can someone help with what is fast becoming a big problem. My career is being damaged by Wikipedia, and I cannot find a solution.

I am a UK academic and a mediaevalist. I write on subjects including the Vikings. There is also a war game author who shares my name, has an article on Wikipedia, and happens to make games and some fiction books about the Vikings. His Wikipedia article shows up in Google searches. Recently this has: 1) Lost me a job interview because the recruitment team googled my name and found what they thought was a lot of junk about me. 2) Probably lost me a job – the interview panel had structured questions around an identity that is not mine, and a good chunk of a 1hr interview was spent persuading them I am not someone else.

The easiest answer I can see is for an article about me to go up on Wikipedia. There is ample justification for such an article as I am well known in my area, and many of my peers do have articles. I’ve tried to sort this out – Graeme Davis (mediaevalist) - but run foul of Wikipedia’s self promotion rules. I’ve now deleted the article that seems to be causing offence. But please can you help me here. Wikipedia cannot be happy with a situation where confusion it is creating is blighting peoples’ careers.

Read WP:PROF and WP:N, which list the criteria an article needs to meet to stay up. The main problem with the article as it stands is the lack of multiple, independent, non-trivial sources; basically you need to show that at least two other non-trivial publications have written about you, and that all the information in the article has already been published somewhere else (otherwise, it constitutes original research by Wikipedia rules). Despite what some may say, there is nothing to forbid writing about yourself, but make sure that it is neutral about anything potentially controversial. If the article does get deleted, you can recreate it later in a form that satisfies Wikipedia policy. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above, but it isn't a solution to this particular problem. I'm trying to find with Wikipedia a solution to a very serious problem where Wikipedia is damaging my career and my reputation because it is allowing confusion between me and someone else who bears the same name. There are issues with the existing material on Wikipedia which really cannot be discussed in an open forum because they are sensitive and have a legal dimension in many jurisdictions, certainly including England and the US. How do I talk privately to someone who can help me?

Go to WP:AN/I and post a summary of the problem there; this will notify the Wikipedia admins of the problem. Be sure to come back periodically to check for replies as they'll reply on the same page. If that doesn't solve the problem and it's causing serious problems, go to WP:RFO and follow the instructions there; you'll need to email the address given at the bottom of the page with the url of the page in question and what the problem is, and the Wikimedia Foundation (owners of Wikipedia) will take whatever action's necessary. Only use RFO for serious issues such as posting personal details without your consent or serious libel; AN/I should be enough to clear it up in most cases - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing Graeme's rationale for his biographical page, I will agree that he has a professional justification for wanting to be differentiated from the author of role-playing games. I have added disambiguation notices at the head of each article and am perfectly agreeable to allowing his biographical article to stand, subject to the need for citation of independent sources already noted by iridescenti.

I'm still of the opinion, however, that the articles on the journals and the institute constitute self promotion in violation of Wikipedia policy and should be deleted. SteveMcCluskey 18:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep and cleanup While I understand the implications of the Conflict of Interests (et al.) policies, I do not think deleting is the right thing to do. I mean, this article is not a piece of marketing or something alike, it doesn't hurt anybody and, although it is not a perfect Wikipedia aritcle, it does not violate any policies (apart from the COI and probably the Verifiability one). Therefore I suggest keeping this, especially, in view of the danger of confusion with the other Graeme Davis, who, as I learnt, can be associated with Mediaevalism as well... --Mbimmler 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments above. I don't understand how to make citations from independent sources (though clearly this is a good idea). If anyone can tell me how to do this I'll do it. In this context is it just a case of linking book citations to the publishers' websites? (I can manage this). I'm not really a wikipedia article writer, nor have I any particular wish to become one. There is a very special reason for me wanting to avoid confusion with the other Graeme Davis and any further damage to my career this confusion might cause. I've just lost a job through this, and you will all understand I'm pretty sore about this. The success of wikipedia now means that prospective academic employers in the UK are giving credence to wikipedia to the extent that they structure interview questions around what they think they have found there.

A note on a comment above. The Open University is Britain's biggest University, as well as one of the best achieving in all league tables. A policy of the University is that it does not list its thousands of associate lecturers on its web site. A handful may be listed where they have another role, but almost all are not.

The brief articles I put up about three journals pre-date my editorship of them. I think they are of interest to wikipedia readers (they are big players among academic journals). But if members of wikipedia don't like them I'm really not bothered if they are deleted. What I am bothered about is confusion with someone that leads to big career problems for me.

Thanks, Graeme Davis_

Comment I've left instructions on how to do citations on your talk page — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iridescenti. I've had a go at adding references - internet links seem simplest, but no shortage of paper references if they are worth typing in. Hope this helps. Graemedavis 22:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm assuming good faith in Mr. Davis's comments. Steve Dufour 03:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Graeme Davis posted on the BLP noticeboard but I thought he was saying he was a third Graeme Davis. I was thinking any Graeme Davis who is not notible enough for an article can be mentioned on the disambig page maybe.

Keep per WP:IAR. Given his publications and expertise, the individual has a substantial chance of being at least marginally notable by the regular criteria, and including a marginally notable individual doesn't really damage the encyclopedia per WP:NOT#PAPER (no worse than including yet another piece of The Simpsons trivia or similar). By WP:AGF, we have no reason to doubt Dr. Davis' story and so we have to treat it as legitimate. This means we have to accept his claim that the superficial similarity between his personal details and another individual of the same name is causing him serious difficulties. WP:IAR therefore demands that we bend the rules to accommodate a difficult situation that nobody ever had in mind when the rules were designed. This is exactly the kind of case that WP:IAR was intended for. It must control. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once the issue of his biography is resolved, suggest a separate AfD for the journals where we can take a look at their notability independent of Dr. Davis' personal situation. I don't see a need to ignore the rules for the journal articles. Because the two situations are very different, I don't recommend covering them both in the same AfD. --Shirahadasha 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Shirahadasha. FCYTravis 16:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable, not a puff piece. Could use some ISBNs and {{primarysources}}. — Athænara ✉ 07:55, 27 April 2007 (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.