Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Easttom

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 delete. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Easttom[edit]

I can't find anything on Mr. Easttom that wasn't written by the man himself. He appears to be on a crusade of self-promotion, but nothing is jumping out at me to support his notability sufficiently for a Wikipedia article. Lots of claims, nothing really notable. Bullet points two and four in the biography section may be borderline and warrant some investigation, but that's pretty thin. He also appears to be seeding himself throughout the wiki, if the opening line is anything to go by. What say you? Closedmouth (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I went through this article thoroughly and marked where citations were needed. There's opinions that aren't cited and the citations are not reliable according to WP:RS. Regardless of my opinion that it's an autobiography, it's in no way ready or suitable for Wikipedia. OlYeller^Talktome 11:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is an autobiography. But a. This individual FIRST appeared in wikiquotes NOT written by himself. So clearly wikiquotes finds the persons thoughts quotable. b. The person IS actually a well known computer author. A number of other living authors also have biographies in Wikipedia. Therefore beinga biography is NOT in and of itself a reason for deletion. c. There are MULTIPLE citations including links to wikiquotes citations of this individual. Other citations including the Computer Technology Industry Association website references to this individual, Amazon.com listings of his books, and Google scholar references to this individual. All of those ARE reliable links.

It frankly sounds as if you simply don't like the individual and therefor want him deleted. This entry is a biogrpahy of a living author, who was FIRST listed in wikiquotes (without his knowledge even), and the entry contains reliable links/sources. There is NO legitimate reason for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckeasttom (talk • contribs) 14:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Chuckeasttom (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Note At least one of the Wikiquotes was added by an anonymous IP (70.122.233.57) that has also been editing the article under consideration here. --Crusio (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator, OlYeller. Could have and probably should have been deleted as spam. Edward321 (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article being an autobiography is immaterial, although it can result in WP:COI issues. The important point here is the subject doesn't fulfill Wikipedia's requirements for notability as verified in reliable sources. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability established at all. §FreeRangeFrog 19:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I guess I'm a competitor of his in some fashion, so I don't believe I should !vote. But given that I was the one who spent the time to turn his autobio into something approaching a WP article, here are my thoughts:

Based on this diff or this diff, maybe this AFD should be changed to CSD G7?
It's probably worth noting that Chuck easttom has already been deleted (through CSD) once.
Quotability != notability.
Amazon isn't a reliable source imo. If it is, I want to know more about how Mr. Easttom wrote a book on JavaScript in 1901.
Who's Who doesn't count towards notability, based on this and this AFD.
There are over 150 people credited at http://certification.comptia.org/security/about.aspx. I don't believe that all of them are notable, and I don't see that he's in any way featured.
http://www.experts.com/listing.asp?index=731 is not a reliable source, either. As it says at the bottom of the page, "Experts.com assumes no liability or responsibility for the accuracy of information that is presented in the directory. The listees are solely responsible for accuracy of content."
A search of Google News does show him with a few news mentions—a definite plus.
This Google search shows that he's written books that have been required for college classes. That puts him squarely within WP:Notability (academics) (per "4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." and "12. Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education.").

Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reluctant Keep~~Delete I absolutely hate this kind of self-promotional puffery. Unfortunately, seems to meet WP:ACADEMIC #4 as shown by Dori. I have done some cleanup in the article, but more is needed, especially references to his books and to the fact that they are being used as course materials. Some more cutting and slashing may be needed, too. --Crusio (talk)00:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Change vote to delete per Dori: let's make this unanimous... :-) --Crusio (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete~~Keep~~. I also think he meets WP:PROF criterion #4 (significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions). In addition to the evidence provided by Dori, he also has several widely held books according to WorldCat. He has at least one book, Learn VB.net, currently in more than 900 libraries worldwide.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Changed recommendation to delete based on the author/subject’s request below, as well as Dori’s point regarding BLP. In this case, the subject’s notability is not at the level that would justify keeping the article against the subject’s wishes.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable, don't see the significant impact, see minor impact, which will probably fade to oblivion, not going to be notable in the future, so not notable now. it may be met by textbook use, but then again... it may not, here we have may not, i think. --Buridan (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of cleanup on the article has been done by Dori and myself and think it now looks rather decent even though some references are still needed. I invite the "delete" voters to have a second look at the article and revise there vote if they think this is acceptable now. --Crusio (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment i see no increased claim to notability beyond your bog standard middle of the road computer science instructor/professor. there is no thing that stands out that will continue to be notable over time, so i don't think he can be notable now. --Buridan (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the original author and subject of the article. I simply posted a very brief article to match wikiquotes from me (that I did not post, one at least has been in wikiquotes for years). A tremendous controversy has arisen. Even though I was honest when I first posted, used my real name, admitted it was me, I ahve people like Crusio now accusing me of being every editor to that page that he is not familiar with. And frankly some of the edits he and others did have a) taken out true and verifiable items, and put in things that are NOT true (I have been credited with 11 books, I have only written 10. I am credited with the wrong degrees [I have a BA not a BSc and an M.Ed. not an M.Sc.], and other errors). Frankly seeing that within 1 week of posting such controversy has arisen, I have been personally attacked by one editor who seems to have obsessed over me (he has posted 35 of the total of 100 edits, all in 72 hours, far more than the next 5 prolific editors put together, far more than I even did initially publishing, and he then publically accused me of 'sockpuppetry')and so many errors have been entered into the article it has totally undermined any confidence I had in wikipedia, and I don't want my name associated with it. I now understand why NO professor accept wikipedia cites as a source. I strongly support the deletion of this article. As both the original author and subject, that help the case for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckeasttom (talk • contribs)

Oh, don't be so melodramatic, this is hardly a "tremendous controversy". It's a pretty standard debate when it comes to autobiographies, and your reaction is nothing out of the ordinary either. The current consensus is leaning toward keep, quit trying to martyr yourself and get on with fixing your article. --Closedmouth (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck, thanks for posting these corrections here (better would have been on the article's talk page), I have changed this in the article. Which book is not yours? Let us know and someone will remove it. As for my numbers of edits, when there is controversy about an article, I tend to make very small edits at a time, explaining in the edit summary why I do something. That sometimes makes for large numbers of edits. I'm sorry if that style irritates you, but I think it serves clarity more than if all are done at the same time with only a short edit summary. --Crusio (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

under blp doesn't creator's request change it to speedy and end the discussion?--Buridan (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, G7 only applies if the original author is the only significant author. --Closedmouth (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (yeah, another) - As policy, WP:Biographies of living persons/Help#What you can expect says (under point #2):

if the community agrees you are in fact very minimally "notable", or of transitory (brief, non-lasting) notability, you may be able to request its deletion.

It sounds to me as if that's where we are now. Is anyone saying that Chuck Easttom is more than minimally notable, or that User:Chuckeasttom is not actually Chuck Easttom? Unless that's the argument, this article should be deleted per the subject's request. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above, this person doesn't have the required sources to meet WP:N. Also, this is not the type of academic that I believe WP:PROF #4 was designed for. An impact is different from a significant impact. He may have made an impact, but will it last? Unless we are absolutely sure of that, we can't have an article on him yet. Themfromspace (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dori. When nominating an article like this, please consider that the author may not be well-versed in the policies of Wikipedia regarding notability and conflict-of-interest. Assume good faith, be civil and don't bite. Otherwise you're running at least as afoul of the community norms -- maybe more so, since "participating in a respectful and considerate way" is a policy, not just a guideline. -- Shunpiker (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2009 (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.