Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael C. Seto

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael C. Seto[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — James Cantor (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) specifically and Wikipedia:Notability in general. Published one book on pedophilia in 2008 which received no mainstream media coverage. Article was created by Seto’s friend and co-author, a single-purpose account here to promote the work and ideas of himself and his friends. Jokestress (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article appears to be well-referenced, and the subject should pass WP:ACADEMIC under category 7 (influence outside academia) on the basis of noted testimony before US committees and commissions. The argument that the author is an WP:SPA seems to be somewhat spurious; User:James Cantor self-identifies that he edits under his real name and works on or has worked on a large number of articles related to his field of study (sex and psychology). Yes, there is some degree of WP:COI here - author and subject are clearly colleagues - but that should not and does not detract from the notability of the subject. The author has already recused himself from editing a number of articles to which he may have a COI (see here) and it is recommended he add this one to the list. That same pledge also indicates a potential COI on behalf of the nominator.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vulcan's Forge reading of WP:ACADEMIC. Not happy about the COI, but deletion isn't the answer. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2012 (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.