Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Casey (academic)

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Casey (academic)[edit]

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

I created this article in 2009 when I was still fairly new to WP. In retrospect I am not convinced Professor Casey passes WP:PROF. I welcome opionions... Flaming Ferrari (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since the article creation he has been given a named chair at Dartmouth. That's enough for WP:PROF#C5 and for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Keep per David Eppstein. Reliable sources available to put in place to show notability . Fails notability. He's done nothing besides get an education and get a secure job for life. WP:PROF#C5 is meant to be used as one aspect, not the sole criteria. If he were known for writing a best-selling book, or winning a famous academic prize, that would be a reason to keep because he's distinguished himself in his field. But he's not. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an incorrect reading of WP:PROF. Passing *any one criterion* of WP:PROF is passing the whole thing. But since you brought up the subject: his Google scholar profile shows multiple publications with over 100 citations each, enough to pass criterion #C1 as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Still not notable. Everybody in academia publishes. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not everyone's publications get much impact. That is why criterion #C1 is about the citations to the publications, not about how many publications there are. In this case, Google scholar is listing 2352 sources that are in some way about Casey's work (other academic papers that cite his), most of which will be reliably published and by people independent of Casey. Only a small fraction of them are likely to cover his work in significant detail, but a small fraction of 2352 can still be a nontrivial number of in-depth reliable sources. If you believe that WP:PROF #C1 and/or #C5 are the wrong criteria by which to measure academics, argue it on the talk page of that guideline, but in this case #C5 especially is very clear-cut and I think #C1 is almost as clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Question: I would like to understand the basis for the criterion set by David Eppstein, "multiple publications with over 100 citations each" (four in Casey's case). Is that policy, and if so set where? Just asking as there is a fair bit of ambiguity across AfD cases on this.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, especially given that there is nothing in the article that lets the casual reader know this person is distinguished for anything other than his education and job position. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict; SW3 5DL, when you see such a conflict, please don't remove the conflicting comments] It's a judgement call. Different fields have different citation patterns. There is no mechanical rule. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, Sorry, I didn't see your comment there when I restored the comments you'd deleted, so it wasn't intentional. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- WP:PROF#C5 and C1. Michael Casey is one of the biggest stars of the world of computational musical analysis; he is extremely well known to anyone working on digital audio research, computer-based compositions, etc. SW3's notion that he hasn't distinguished himself in his field is laughable. Almost no one in music research is at the level of Casey; that's why he has an endowed chair at Dartmouth. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Michael Scott Cuthbert, this is a forum for discussing article deletion. Editors on this forum are asked to weigh whether or not an article should remain on WP. That means editors community wide. In looking at the article in the state it was in, which at the time was nothing more than his name and educational background, I felt there was nothing to warrant an article. If you'd bothered to actually read what I wrote in my delete comment, you'd see that I said if he'd distinguished himself in his academic field that would be a reason to keep. I do not have the esoteric knowledge you claim to have, nor apparently does the article, and I don't see anyone here who supports keeping the article, improving it to show that. The only laughable comment is yours. If you can't participate here without resorting to childish personal attacks to make your point, then perhaps you should find another project. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you prefer not to go by subject-specific knowledge (a reasonable preference) then you should go by the documented evidence of the respect given to the subject by his peers. In this case, the named chair is such evidence. Such things are given (especially at Ivy League schools) only to highly distinguished academics. He has been noted, by people who (MSCuthbert excepted) understand his accomplishments better than we do; therefore he is notable. That's why C5 is listed as one of the criteria in WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, thank you for your informative comment. I do happen to know what being given an academic chair means, especially what it means at Dartmouth as I graduated from there a while back. I can fully understand why the article was nominated for deletion. This is an encyclopedia. The reader shouldn't be required to have a priori knowledge of academic accolades to understand Michael Casey's BLP. WP isn't an online 'Who's Who in Academia' website. It is not unreasonable to ask that this fellow have some general notability beyond where he went to school and where he teaches now. The article in question doesn't convey anything that leads the reader to believe this person is anything more than a fellow who got a good education. His academic stardom is not stated in the article. His Google scholar profile means nothing to the average reader. Should that be included in article? "Michael Casey has a high Google scholar profile," (add citation). It will still not convey who this person is and what makes him stand out that he should have a WP article. I should think this is precisely why the article has been nominated for deletion. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think it would be much of an improvement to state "he has a high Google scholar profile" or "is one of the biggest stars of the world of computational musical analysis" in the article. What would be more helpful would be to state the general areas of his research and what his most important accomplishments in those areas have been. But doing that right probably requires an editor with similar expertise. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're absolutely right, adding those bits wouldn't be an improvement, but adding what he does would be. That simply requires WP:RS, and so far there doesn't appear to be any of that. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        No, the problem is that we have too many reliable sources (as I stated above, some 2352 of them) so we need an editor who is knowledgeable enough to sift through them and pick out the important parts. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, it will take that. I meant RS 'in the article,' at this time to show what he does, etc. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, I see — I agree with that. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As holder of a named chair he should be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A holder of a named chair is notable by WP:Prof#C5. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2014 (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.