Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Pasquale

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 of the debate was Speedy Delete, per G7: "Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request.". --Joann e B 22:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Pasquale[edit]

Delete - Appears to be an autobiography and/or vanity page. Subject may be notable, but, if so, probably best merged somewhere else. WilliamThweatt 05:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's vanity - Richardcavell 06:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Also, please note that the author/subject has blanked the page other than the AfD tag. Darquis 06:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. If the sole author blanks the page, that's a speedy delete under WP:CSD G7. --Metropolitan90 07:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Metropolitan90. --Icarus 07:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough (more notable than the average professional baseball player). Holder of named professorship at a major research university (University of California, San Diego), and has a number of decently-cited papers on Google Scholar, including one cited 132 times.[1] Blanking by author in response to a probably humiliating AfD request should not be a reason to delete. As I see it, blanking without provocation is a different matter. u p p l a n d 08:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Uppland. Blanking your own page in response to an AfD is perfectly normal, but shouldnt be encouraged to happen. Also, I think the individual in question is notable enough. Hornplease 08:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've unblanked it so ppl can see what were voting on. He merits inclusion per Uppland. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've written articles on professors who were more qualified than this (Harold Luntz is a world expert on Western torts law, quoted in the highest courts of the UK, USA and Australia) and they were AfD'ed. Let's be consistent. - Richardcavell 09:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see any incoming links from an AfD page to Harold Luntz - when was it on AfD? It seems from the deletion log that it was actually speedy deleted. It is quite likely that it would have survived had it ever come to AfD. u p p l a n d 10:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right. It was speedy-deleted by User:Vegaswikian. I'm not happy about it, because if I can't have the leading expert in English language torts law then I don't see why Joseph Pasquale should be in. - Richardcavell 10:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It seems Harold Luntz was improperly tagged {{nn-bio}} and speedy deleted by a hurried admin. You should repost the article, and could put it on AfD yourself just to stop it from being speedy deleted again if you believe there is any danger in that. Don't bother with Wikipedia:Deletion review (where nobody except admins can actually see the content), just make sure his importance is clear from the article. Some people put nn-bio tags on anything and anybody they haven't heard of, and admins don't always have time to look closely at everything; it doesn't mean that the deletion was actually in accordance with any policy. The {{nn-bio}} tag is supposed to be for school students writing about themselves and their buddies, and that kind of thing, very explicity not for cases like this. And that deletion obviously can't be used as an argument to delete other professors. Have you had any other articles deleted? u p p l a n d 10:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, I've re-created the biography of Harold Luntz and I'll put it through AfD. - Richardcavell 11:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - makes a claim of academic eminence that amounts to notability in my eyes. Metamagician3000 13:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If the article is true, he's more notable than the average professor. Needs references though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. Probably just clears the bar - needs work. -- MarcoTolo 16:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears notable—who wrote it has no bearing on that. -- SCZenz 16:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sole author blanked the page (someone else restored it) and he does not seem to that much more notable than an average professor. -- Kjkolb 16:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems more notable than average due to the fact that he holds a named professorship. RicD o d 16:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand making his noteworthiness clear. In relation to Harold Luntz, it is quite often that articles will be nominated for CSD if the article does not emphasise the notability of the subject and sometimes even if it does. Admins should check what links here and occasionally do a Google search before making a decision. Justin Hinds, a notable Jamaican ska singer was nominated because the article didn't demonstrate notability before I expanded it. Capitalistroadster 18:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, holds named chair in important university system, very substantial Google scholar presence. Monicasdude 22:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just look at the list of PhD students (and the publication list). JeffBurdges 14:48, 4 May 2006 (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.