Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred de Grazia (2nd nomination)

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). Although the COI issues are a cause for concern, the community feels that these issues should be dealt with through editing and not deletion. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alfred de Grazia

Alfred de Grazia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This particular article was nominated for deletion a year ago with no consensus. There are basically two problems with this page. First of all, it is written primarily by the subject's wife as a promotional spot for the person in question in violation of vanity regulations. This was the rationale for the first deletion, but there is a more important consideration to be had here. Our standards for including articles on academics are listed at WP:PROF. This particular person does not appear to me to rise to the level outlined there. In particular, he does not seem to be any more distinguished or well-known than an average professor -- indeed he may be considerably less accomplished than your average tenured professor. He has published some books, but none seem to have garnered any mainstream notoriety. Nondistinguished 05:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable. Colonel Warden 06:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  By what criteria? Here are the ones from WP:PROF:

1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. -- None are indicated.
2. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field. -- None are indicated.
3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature. -- Arguable with respect to some of his books, but I see no evidence for academic significance and his work certainly isn't "well known".
4. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known. -- Not the case.
5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources. -- Quantavolution is his original concept, but it has received no reviews nor studies.
6. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. -- None are indicated.

• So please let us know what standards you are using. Perhaps you don't think this person should be evaluated as an academic? Nondistinguished 06:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Subject seems notable as an author with many published works, but the article needs serious work to trim it to factual, referenced information.--Michig 07:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep But but take a sharp pixel cutter and remove the unsourced material. I share the frustration of the proposer, but delete is not the answer here. Also note those WP:PROF criteria (per the intro on the page) mean an academic is certainly notably. But lack of them does not mean he is not. (sufficient but not neccessary) This guy is notable per WP:BIO as an author. But Nondistinguished be WP:BOLD in your efforts to improve this article.Obina 09:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's only contentious unsourced material that should be removed per WP:LIVING, the rest can be tagged. --Tsyko 11:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable.Rocket000 10:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia does not ban biographical articles written by oneself or family, it just says that "you have no right to control its content", and there is no sign of that. The suggestion that this was a vanity article was dismissed in the first AfD. Notability is exceeded in numerous areas, and I wonder whether the nominator has read the article? The subject has had books published by several mainstream publishers ("Size of Corpus and Its Distribution"), co-founded the American Behavioral Scientist which has been running for nearly 50 years. I have no idea how the nominator assessed that subject "may be considerably less accomplished than your average tenured professor". The subject seems to not only meet WP:PROF, but exceeds notability in others areas too. --Tsyko 11:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete He's an interesting guy, but this seems like an extensive vanity bio to me. Not really notable. Tiptopper 12:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Uhhhh, the man's name returns THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY-FIVE hits on Google Book Search alone, a HUGE portion of them being books/pamphlets/etc. written by him. Also, he's been notable since the '60's,at least. That's just one of a handful of articles I found. Some non-lazy editor(s) should go through that article, source it and weed out the unsourceable. Also, I find it interesting that the nom is so certain the wife wrote the article as she's been dead at least ten years.Do some research! --Sethacus 16:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. That was his first wife. It does appear that the article was written by his second wife Ami (Special:Contributions/Amideg), not that that's a reason for deletion per se.--Michig 16:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Though, per the article, his second wife's name is Anne-Marie, I'm willing to believe it was written by her. Per the article, Anne-Marie is French and there's a phrase "joined with him" that caught my eye. The French word for "to marry" literally means "join with".--Sethacus 16:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It's confusing. The article later states "In 2002, Alfred and Ami sold their house..." and it's presumably this Ami that wrote the article. Another thing that needs fixing in this article.--Michig 16:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment It seems to be both. Anne-Marie refers to herself as "Ami". That should be discussed on the talk page/fixed, though.--Sethacus 17:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment When the only reference in an article this long has something to do with Velikovsky, you need to take a very close look at the whole article. If you strip this one of the peacock language, there's not much left. An article this long that's been around for a year, and no good references? And the people here who recommend Keep haven't added any? If it looks like poop, and it smells like poop... MarkBul 19:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and stubify immediately after closing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 20:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• weak deletekeep and trim to stub. The article is a huge COI hagiography of a kook, while he may approach notability, this article does not have the balance and tone required for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Changed to weak delete, my keep thinking was based on my recollection of notability standards for authors , but I don't see this under WP:BIO (creative professionals) anymore, and so, in the absence of a realiable source demonstrating secondary coverage of Alfred de Grazia as a subject himself, I think he stands as a non-notable author of many books (none of which demonstrably pass WP:BK). Pete.Hurd 21:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. He seems to be notable. But, as others have said, the article needs to be rewritten. Steve Dufour 22:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the BIO & COI issues raised by Pete Hurd. I am somewhat dismayed at the breezy, even inattentive opinions expressed above to retain this, as well as the offhand way with which editors feel COI concerns can simply be swept away with a "needs rewrite." This is a serious problem and a major stain on reputation. Eusebeus 23:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I understood that this debate is about the notability of the subject, not the quality of the article. p.s. There are lots of articles written from a negative and hostile POV here on WP and I think that is just as bad as ones written from a positive POV. Steve Dufour 02:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(My 2c worth on this off-topic thread are here Pete.Hurd 03:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

• Keep Co-authorship of "Congress and the presidency: their role in modern times" with Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. is a rather strong claim of notability. This is an awfully written and formed article for an individual who is clearly notable. Alansohn 03:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but He is certainly significant; Pete concerns about COI and appropriate weight are however altogether appropriate, and I have begun a preliminary rewriting on the initial parts of the article to improve it while it is at AfD. I am not the best qualified person for the more technical portions later on, so I hope someone else continues this. Eusubius is correct that we should not delay dealing with this.DGG (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for grabbing the bull by the horns and attempting to recraft the article. Unfortunately, User:Eusebeus' "solution" for dealing with the problem is to flush it down the toilet. Alansohn 05:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Ummm, I think it was Nondistinguished that put it up for deletion. Pete.Hurd 06:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
      • DGG referenced Eusebeus' comments above. Alansohn 06:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Person clearly notable. But the article is in horrible condition as the majority of it is unsourced.Vice regent 21:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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.