Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli Noam

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The result was speedy keep, nom withdrawn, non-admin. Morgan Wick 18:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eli Noam

Eli Noam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No assertion of notability. This is a curriculum vitae, not an article. Ford MF 22:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Withdraw nomintion. I've been convinced. Ford MF 18:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Obviously very notable: senior professor at a top-ten biz school, many publications, many books, excellent record of public service. Even his marriage is notable. I agree that it's badly written: tag it with {{wikify}} but AfD shouldn't be used for that process. —David Eppstein 00:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • But does he meet WP:PROF? Yes, his wife is notable, but notability does not span across marriages. Morgan Wick 02:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I think the other criteria I mentioned first are rather more important for judging notability. But if they don't convince you: 93 news articles on Eli M. Noam and 338 news articles on Eli Noam. Many are by him (e.g. opinion pieces in the NY Times and Financial Times), or quote him, or happen to mention him in articles about his wife, but others are about him in part (a piece about how Columbia profits from its research faculty, another on nominees to the NY public service commission) or about his books (e.g. a review of " Telecommunications in Europe" in Journal of International Affairs). Here's one: CNN calls him a "leading educator" and "an authority in the development of distance learning on the Internet for university students", mentioning him prominently in an article on distance learning. Wired Magazine sees fit to mention his talk at a conference. Variety Magazine reports on a rumored FCC nomination. Etc. Most of these are too peripheral to use as sources for the article itself, but they are strong indicators of notability, I think. —David Eppstein 02:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment those are all articles by Eli Noam, not about him. Near as I can tell, he's had no coverage in secondary sources at all. Ford MF 02:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment. And as you point out, the other cites, like in Wired, are just passing mention. Ford MF 02:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. Professor at one of world's most prominent business schools. WP:PROF easily satisfied here. --C S (Talk) 02:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Notability is not inherited. Just because he teaches at a notable institution does not automatically mean he is notable. I imagine there are lots of professors at that school. Are all of them notable merely by the virtue of teaching there? Ford MF 03:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • No, but the default assumption after they've passed three levels of notability review that are more thorough and stringent than the ones we have here (at hiring, tenure, and promotion to full) should be that most of them are. —David Eppstein 03:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment expensive colleges do have stringent and thorough reviews for hiring, tenure and promotion, but those are reviews for academic qualification, not encyclopedic notability. They're not the same thing. Ford MF 03:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • You say they are not the same thing, but the criteria in WP:PROF are in fact a subset of those used for tenure decisions at research institutions, e.g. Columbia Business School. --C S (Talk) 04:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, it needs references and needs to be wikified, but the guy is notable as per User:David Eppstein's citations (which should become references). Clerks. 13:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Easy keep -- needs a de-CVing, but no notability issues, per David Eppstein's comments. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. -- Does meet the criteria of WP:BIO. It may need some improvement.--Edtropolis 15:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Far surpasses less notable academics included here. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 16:39, 14 June 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.