Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Lance de Masi

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 Is it quite divided in regards to arguments related to the notability issue. So as a result, it is a No consensus --JForget 22:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Lance de Masi

Dr. Lance de Masi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Only one line in article now. Maybe we should delete until someone wants to contribute something substantial. Mblumber (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No assertation of notability beyond being the president of a university in Dubai, which, IMHO, is not enough to justify one line. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 02:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - OK, when I approached this, I thought that surely a university president would have interviews, profiles, or other sources listed somewhere. However, beyond his recent election to the presidency of a chapter of the International Advertising Association (which I added and cited), I cannot find a single other source on him. I would certainly welcome the recreation of this article with more sources, but for now, there doesn't seem to be much out there. TN‑X-Man 03:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep President of a university is notable. It just needs expansion to show it. it was not very clever to write an article with so little information, but that's another matter entirely. What there is shows notability. DGG (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no inherent notability for university presidents; please show "multiple independent reliable sources" first. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per inherent real world notability of university presidents, coverage in multiple reliable sources, and also per Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance as the article was about an hour old when nominated and has already improved since then. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you tell us why you think they're notable? Adding the words "real world" doesn't magically make a subject notable. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• comment I've looked at the google search linked to by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, and I'm not convinced that he passes the WP:N bar of extensive coverage in reliable sources independednt of the subject. I may yet be convinced that he's notable, for example this bio blurb makes parenthetical mention of awards he has won... Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep University presidents are notable. --Blechnic (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I understand that university presidents are usually notable. But using Google (with the usual caveats that come with that statement), I could not find anything that really fits as a reliable source. Please note, I did use (-IAA) to filter out results relating to the reference already noted. There are some articles that quote him, sure, but nothing approaching significant coverage. TN‑X-Man 02:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. A president of a university is notable for that reason alone, if nothing else. Having been nominated shortly after creation, it's just too early to start wondering where the quality sources are. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It's not that I'm wondering where they are, it's that I can't find them! However, I'd be happy to withdraw/ change my opinion if some were added to the article. I did a search and added what I could to the article. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 03:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:JNN - "The mirror of 'Just not notable' is the assertion that something is notable, but fails to provide an explanation or source for the claim of notability". Again, what makes college presidents so special that notability is presumed for them? Why should we override the requirement that "multiple independent reliable sources" deal with them? Biruitorul ^Talk 14:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean to suggest notability is to be presumed; rather, it was a comment that was meant to suggest that since he is a university president (which I think is indisputable judging by a simple google search), he's likely notable, ergo — sources probably exist and just need to be located. If editors could give more than a few hours between article creation and nomination for deletion, the sources might be provided by other users. Some users have access to and use libraries, where information not on the internet can be found. In other words, not being able to find anything on the internet is not necessarily determinative, and when the person is a university president it's my feeling that sources are almost surely available. They might even be in Dubai, which might require an editor in Dubai to do the editing. (All of these are revolutionary and scary ideas for anyone who believes that google has access to all the secrets of the universe, I know, but they could prove to be useful.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• delete Notwithstanding his status as a University President, I can't see him passing WP:N or WP:BIO. I see no reliable evidence that his intellectual product has had a notable impact in his academic area (which is the essence of WP:PROF), and therefore suggest that his notability be judged on WP:BIO, which he fails. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• But he's not being judged as a professor, but as a university president. This seems a real sticking point for folks looking to delete articles on Wikipedia, find a niche: shoe horn the article into it whether it fits or not, then spit out the associated alphabet soup. Whatever. I'm going to start spewing random policies myself. --Blechnic (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think that Pete.Hurd is naming random policies. WP:N outlines the general notability guidelines for all articles. WP:BIO is a little more specific, as it deals with biographies. We cannot apply a very specific WP:UNIVERSITYPRESIDENT (as it does not exist), however, there is WP:PROF, which is usually brought up in debates about the world of academia. I think what Pete.Hurd is trying to say is that WP:BIO is the most specific guideline we can apply here, since Dr. de Masi is not a professor and WP:PROF would not apply. I hope that clarifies a little bit where Pete.Hurd (and I) are coming from. Please remember that we're here to build consensus. Pete.Hurd, please feel free to let me know if I misinterpreted anything you said. TN‑X-Man 01:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Tnxman307 does a good job of explaining for me. It is fair to say that there is a general precedent on list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions that University Presidents (of suitably august institutions) are notable, the merits of this have recently been debated in the middleish of this thread here. The idea that University Presidents are notable is closely associated with WP:PROF which is a more lenient and inclusive guideline than WP:BIO. I'm not actually arguing that de Masi is not a professor, and therefore not covered by WP:PROF - rather I think that 1) he's an academic and therefore covered by WP:PROF, and 2) as I read WP:PROF, it doesn't say that administrative positions confer notability, only academic impact does, and therefore I see no passing of WP:PROF. I see no evidence that he meets the more stringent requirements of the more general WP:BIO, and no escape clause saying that important people in big important organizations are notable even if they fail the general condition: "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." If I've overlooked a policy that clearly states "all University Presidents are notable", then I'll gladly change my !vote. Cheers, Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, as long as those proposing deletion have to dismantle accuracy in order to pressure for deletion (I swear there's a merit badge for AfD behind this), I'm not going to buy the crap that gets tossed this way. University president is not usually lumped in on the university's home page with "administrative positions," like vice president of financial aid. You had to reduce the position to one of the multitudes in order to support your arguments. Yawn. Alphabet soup response. Yada yada yada. --Blechnic (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, there is no need for you to be rude and incivil here. I do not necessarily support the arguments of Pete Hurd and Tnxman307 but they did present rationally reasoned and policy based arguments (which are also polite, unlike yours). Their point is that neither of WP:N, WP:BIO or WP:PROF states that university presidents are automatically notable and that the other criteria of these guidelines are not satisfied by the subject of this AfD either. If you want to argue that "all University Presidents are notable", fine, but you do have to point out to a specific notability guideline here and argue that either explicit language or the implicit meaning of this guideline support your assertion. Nsk92 (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Why, it was nominated for deletion because there was only one line in the article, not because it was not notable. Why do I have to provide anything, when the AfD gave no reason whatsoever? There are thousands of one line articles on Wikipedia, what would happen if I nominated them all quoting precisely this nomination here? I'd get blocked. Yawn. So much for politeness forcing a discussion on a made up reason that isn't policy and demanding policy from me? --Blechnic (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The nominator may not have given sounds policy-based reasons for a delete, but the other AfD participants have. If you want the article kept, you need to present convincing policy-based counter-arguments. Nsk92 (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I misunderstood, anything can be nominated for deletion for any reason, and then will be deleted unless someone counters to keep it? Yawn. Sorry, no, it hasn't been nominated for deletion, even the nominator doesn't know anything about it. Alphabet soup contains something about AfDs. This isn't one. --Blechnic (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"anything can be nominated for deletion for any reason, and then will be deleted unless someone counters to keep it?" Not at all, and that is not what I said. If neigher the nominator nor the other AfD participants offer good reasons for deleting the article, it should be kept (and if for some reason it gets deleted, such a deletion should and would be reversed at WP:DRV). However, if the nominator gives a bad reason for deletion but other AfD participants give good and convincing reasons for deletion, the article may be deleted and such deletion would be proper if the AfD demonstrates appropriate consensus. This is how the AfD process works. Nsk92 (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, this is how it works, just like it says in the policy, of course the policy also discusses junk like whether or not ghits are a reason for deletion and that seems to be the sole basis of every nomination on AfD: if you're talking about something that has a web presence it can stay in Wikipedia, but if some lucky merit badge seeker finds an obscure topic not all over the internet (ie, not associated with pop culture), they can just claim ghits and down it goes. Sorry, policy is just a tool for hitting newbies over the head. I've been hit enough. Bounce it off of someone else's head, or get me banned so you can grab your AfD merit badge for keeping Wikipedia clean for pop culture. --Blechnic (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, as someone who is in the position of agreeing with your bottom line vote of keep in this instance, I feel l need say you have been sounding somewhat uncivil in your comments. At first I thought your comments were given in good humour, which I always enjoy, but as they've continued I think it's clear that's not exactly how they are being given. It's not really productive to denigrate other editors who may enjoy working in AfD as "merit badge seekers" or to make a lot of "yawn" responses to other editors' comments. If you aren't really that taken by what they are saying and feel you have "heard it all before", just ignore it and move on to something else. There's no reason to put others down or cause bad feelings to develop here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sufficiently thick-skinned to be OK with the "yawn" responses, but I thought that his comment "I'm not going to buy the crap that gets tossed this way" in reply to Pete Hurd was definitely incivil. Nsk92 (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat uncivil? I use the same tone and attitudes towards others that has been the established and appropriate tone for users and admins to use against me. I would call it quite a bit beyond "somewhat" incivil. --Blechnic (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Do I understand it correctly that you are upset by the "somewhat uncivil" characterization of your comments because you aimed to be "quite a bit beyond "somewhat" incivil"? Nsk92 (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I could have made the statement more extreme. I could have just said don't be a dick, even if you think others act that way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of notability verified by reliable sources. Does not pass WP:PROF. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 22:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Summary comments This is a rather odd one. His university is an important one, with full internationally recognized accreditation through the graduate level, with 400 graduates a year, now in its 13th year--there are quite a number of articles about it; he is mentioned in many of them, handing out the various prizes and diplomas and making the ceremonial speeches (the proper search terms are AUD Masi -- the university is usually known by the acronym). Always before, in such a situation, it has been possible to find some actual references & information about the individual--if nothing else, there's an elaborate press release on the university site. There's almost no information to be found here-- he holds the very modest academic rank of assistant Professor of Marketing Communications--and his only degree listed is an honorary one from a rather dubious place, Schiller International University. For a professor of advertising, he is really remarkably modest. there may well be an interesting story here & I have a guess, but I cannot find anything specific--I searched a few likely places not scanned by Google. I added what I could, and I still consider him notable from his position. But if deleted, redirect to the university. DGG (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, as he is the president of an important university and of the UAE chapter, which according to [1] is the largest chapter in that organization. There's this short bio [2], and [3] p.8 and 161 give his MBA & MA degree (Indiana University) , as well as his BA from St. John Fisher College. But he should be kept because it is clear he is an International Man of Mystery and thus highly notable.John Z (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, googling on him and BBDO gets [4] with his age in 1997; he was Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer from June 1991 to March 1997 of BBDO Worldwide.John Z (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2008 (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.