Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Madnick

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 speedy keep. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Madnick[edit]

Contested prod. Unreferenced BLP, prod was removed and no references added. Not notable academic puff piece. ViridaeTalk 06:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The subject of this article does not meet WP:PROF. This article does indeed seem like WP:PUFF; the subject supposedly has made "significant contributions" to the industry, but that is not backed up by reliable sources. In fact, this BLP is unreferenced except for the subject's MIT faculty bio. As a side note, the subject apparently runs a hotel out of a castle he owns and has taken the title of "baron"; I don't think that establishes notability either. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep First it's not unreferenced. Secondly meets WP:PROF#5. Hobit (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what respect does he meet WP:PROF #5? I came to the opposite conclusion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's a named professor with an endowed chair. I believe that does it. Also [1] is very strong indeed. Hobit (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If I have counted correctly the subject has an h index of 29; a clear keep on WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • I disagree. (not necessarily with you maths). h-index doesn't give inherant notability. ViridaeTalk 10:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You've got to be kidding: a named chair at MIT, no less, and highly cited (per Xxanthippe). Meets WP:PROF twice over. --Crusio (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article was AfD'd because it's an unsourced BLP. This is no kidding, this is serious stuff, exactly what will happen to 50,000+ articles if a renegade gang of editors get their way, see Wikipedia talk:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs and Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. He has authored or coauthored 250 books; Not notable academic puff piece. Bah, lousy nomination, but instructive nevertheless. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep A Google News search more than confirms notability: [2]. Warrah (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep. Clear pass of WP:PROF #1, #4, and (most obviously) #5. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The article, Stuart Madnick, is more than likely an autobio (being created by Smadnick (talk · contribs)), entirely unsourced and sounds promotional("prolific writer", "significant contributions", yet even the only primary source he provided didn't mention "significant contributions"). Given that it has not improved since its creation (in 2006), and it sounds so much like a resume that it would need a complete overhaul to become encyclopedic, I'm with deleting it without prejudice to further recreation. (Please consider this seriously. If it weren't such an autobio, I might as well already had this AfD NACed as snow keep.) Blodance the Seeker 17:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the guy most have some time on his hands. When he isn't keeping his castle or tending to his two professorships he's wikifiddling. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable professor, MIT is quite an important academic institution. Referencing is not currently ideal but it clearly isn't unreferenced. ϢereSpielChequers 18:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy procedural keep (by an admin, please) - this looks like a case of WP:SNOW. Given his position he's presumptively notable under WP:PROF, and if there's still a lack of sourcing I'll just go ahead and add one so the original complaint is moot. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done! While y'all were fighting here and at Arbcom, Giftlite, Hipocrite, and I fixed the sourcing / notability problem. I'll probably take a few more passes at it and the article still needs a lot of work but this page isn't a great place to get that done. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Almost as though a test case were desired where the person is notable sans contention. Collect (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nominators should follow WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for AfD, otherwise the time of other editors may be wasted. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stuart_Madnick&oldid=1090006328"