Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Ubell

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) Kharkiv07 (T) 02:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ubell

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

There is a possibility that this person is notable, but not on the basis of this article, which is purely promotional--in fact, I'm tempted to nominate it for speedy deletion. It's the typical administrator fluff, in which the administrator is given credit for every single good thing (and never blamed for any bad thing)--and sometimes the sources actually parrot this, typically with phrases that start with "Under his leadership, ...". Anyway, the sourcing isn't there for this vice-dean, and neither deans nor vice-deans have inherent notability per WP:PROF. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a variety of sources available for this article in Proquest Newspapers. The deletion argument above based on the tone and sources in the article doesn't reflect WP:BEFORE. Yes, the article has problems, but WP:DINC.--Jahaza (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, would you mind actually giving a few examples of the reliable coverage you claim you have found? Drmies (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had Proquest open, so I ran a search on him. The first 8 hits were press releases related online learning initiatives. So are many of the later ones, a few were atricles about onlining learning initiatives by Stevens and NYU. He was described as "vice dean for online learning", and "vice president of Enterprise Learning" at NYU, here is a paragraph from a 2009, Wall Street Journal article: "There is a misalignment between the university system and the needs of the economy," says Robert Ubell, who heads a New York University program in China to train young Chinese employees of foreign companies. "Chinese graduates often have few practical skills." [1]. That's as much as I know.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher's weekly has

Reid, C. (2000). Ubell builds web program at stevens. Publishers Weekly, 247(9), 18. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/197033867

Reid, C. (1997). Ubell to new media spot at marcel dekker. Publishers Weekly, 244(39), 20. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/197022674 (About his publishing career.)

His 2010 book Virtual Teamwork: Mastering the Art and Practice of Online Learning and Corporate Collaboration from Wiley gets a review here:

Llorens, J. (2010). ONE FOR THE TEAM. T + D, 64(12), 74. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/817556645

And also a capsule review in Nature: Books in brief. (2010). Nature, 468(7327), 1035. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/822220239

He was coauthor of a 1974 book Children Are the Revolution about daycare in Cuba which has a lot of citations. And is also author of Robert Ubell, "Cuba's Great Leap," Nature (April 1983), which is also widely cited along with other 1983 articles on Cuba.

He was publisher of the American edition of Nature in the 1970s and was editor of The Sciences during a period of editorial renewal at the magazine. See here[2] and here[3].

--Jahaza (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actually as my searches found nothing better at all and this is simply questionable overall. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable for several reason in WP:PROF, and also as WP:Author. The article, as is common for articles copied from outside sources even with permission, is permeated with very minor material and PR, which is why I generally do not advise people to give permission but to rewrite instead. I removed most of it. I've seen worse. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do think there's enough to justify an article. (also just linked to brother's article)E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:48, 8 March 2016 (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.