Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Strano

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 as I'll even note he was notable alone with the named professorship at MIT (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Strano[edit]

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

This article lacks independent sources to establish notability. That may be down to the author's inexperience (he has no other contributions here before or since creating this article) but it looks more like a simple WP:PROF failure. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Strano holds a named chair at MIT and therefore should be a snow keep per WP:PROF#C5. The article also lists a number of awards which would probably meet WP:PROF#C2. Joe Roe (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The awards seem of the young investigator type which count little towards meeting the guidelines, but MIT chair & Thomson Reuter highly cited (which checks out [1]) clearly meet WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above, subject meets notability criteria in WP:PROF. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. The honors and awards section of our article appears to be a copy and paste from his web site, and that should be fixed. But the named chair is a clear pass of WP:PROF, as is his citation record (e.g. 6 papers with over 1000 citations each on Google scholar; were they 10x less I'd still think this a pass). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF is a guide to people likely to be notable, according to the Wikipedia definition (i.e. having been subject of non-trivial indepndent coverage). Do feel free to add that coverage. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It "is a generally accepted standard", not merely a hint towards some other kind of notability, and the standard you used in your nomination statement. Also, even if we were considering a different coverage-based notability standard, the coverage would not be limited to what's already listed in the article. I can't "add to that coverage" because, to do so, I would have to be an independent reliable publisher, not a Wikipedia editor. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find this a baffling comment coming from an administrator, but it perhaps explains your recent spate of nominations of notable academics. WP:PROF states:

This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline.

And from the GNG:

It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right [which includes WP:PROF]

We have a subject-specific guideline precisely because academics frequently don't meet the "Wikipedia definition" of notability (really just one of Wikipedia's definitions) – because people don't tend to write about the even when their contribution to scholarship makes them notable by any reasonable definition of the word. Joe Roe (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a pass of WP:PROF C1, C3, and C5. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:33, 2 September 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.