Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Gilder (professor)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 22:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Gilder (professor)

Vanity and/or non-notable person. This article is connected to two other suspicions pages: Four Freedoms Federation and John Lilburne Research Institute. --JW1805 22:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• If those published works can be verified then this is a keep - he seems sufficiently notable. However, given the other suspicious pages, I'd like it to be checked out more thoroughly. Agentsoo 22:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Just a comment on these publications: Most of these are just conference proceedings (at very obscure conferences). Anyone who has been in academia for years can produce a list like this, but that doesn't make them worthy of an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not the place for obscure professors to post their CV.--JW1805 22:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Didn't realise that. In that case, delete. Agentsoo 12:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, see the VfD's for the related articles:
    • Four Freedoms Federation - (talk) - (VfD)
    • Province of the Carolanas - (talk) - (VfD)
    • John Lilburne Research Institute - (talk) - (VfD)

[edit] A FOOTNOTE

I (MPLX) left Wikipedia some months ago after running into the onslaught of the ill-informed Christian right wing. Although I am not monitoring Wikipedia and do not have any intention of rejoining Wikipedia due to the small cabal of noisy and ill-informed (as opposed to uninformed) people who love deleting stuff, I have been pressed to add this comment due to the sudden interest in deleting a few of the articles that I contributed to. (I have written about many topics.)

It would appear that someone has it their head to sever any ties between John Lilburne and the foundation of American law. This led to a constant barrage of negative comments on the Hugo Black article. Now I see that the idea is to claim that "Carolana" is a misspelling of "Carolina" and to go further and claim that the article about Carolana is a hoax. To this end both Dr. Kenneth Brown of the University of Houston and Dr. Eric Gilder of the University of Sibiu have also been smeared as being not noteworthy and at worst as the creators of vanity and even hoax articles. Such rants by the few lunatics who have gained a noisy control over Wikipedia are one reason why I left Wikipedia and why Wikipedia is in danger of becoming the refuge of a right-wing idiots.

It would seem that a handful of people are trolling with the intent to delete anything that they may disagree with. I noticed the same approach was used on the subject of copyright law within articles dealing with the subject of recorded music and broadcasting which I also contributed to. Now I see that all broadcasts by 4FWS have been tagged as not worthy because they were on "pirate" radio stations - even though several were on licensed stations. However, everything is being smeared and tarnished to make it appear that everything and anything that I contributed to was either a hoax, a work of vanity or unnoteworthy. I also created the history of the development of the jet fighter, but I have not as yet (and probably won't bother) checked to see if those entries are also being targeted.

It is unfortunate to say the least because I thought that Wikipedia had merit, but when I discovered that a mere handful of dedicated zealots could take it over and put their own stamp of ideological approval on it - I left.

Before making more claims that Carolana never existed I would suggest that you perform a little serious research. Unfortunately the zealots have decided that they are a jack of all subjects (and master of none), and because they have never heard something before it means that the subject is either a hoax or a vanity creation by someone else. How pathetic for Wikipedia!

66.90.213.45 00:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (the former MPLX)

• Keep if verified. Dunc|☺ 22:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - looks like a very average publication list for a mid-career academic. Nearly all are conference papers and reports - any professor who's been doing her/his job has such a list. By the way, I've just removed a big hunk of text (about half the article) which was cut-and-pasted from Cuttington University College, and didn't mention Gilder. CDC (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, appears to be notable within his field. Hall Monitor 23:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep based on comination of publications, book editor for a UNESCO publication, etc. On second thought, delete. DS1953 00:22, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Below-average academic list. --Calton | Talk 00:27, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Average or below-average academic. Writing conference papers and book reviews is no big deal -- completely par for the course when you're a middling academic. Likely self-promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:PROF. Radiant_>|< 16:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Martg76 18:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly well-published Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch 00:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User has less than 50 edits. Account appears to have been opened for the purpose of trolling vfd. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 17:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Radiant. Lusanaherandraton 14:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note to admins: if this page goes, make sure to also delete Dr. Eric Gilder, which redirects here.

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.