Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gar alperovitz

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 of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 15:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gar alperovitz

Smells like a vanity page to me Deville (Talk) 06:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable academic, with a long list of pieces in major publications [1]. The list only dates back to 1996, so I'm sure he has many more. The page needs to be moved for capitalization. Also, while the page may well be a vanity page, I have serious doubts. It just seems that if it had been written by Gar Alperovitz it would not be so sloppy and would be significantly longer, but maybe he just found wiki markup confusing. btm _talk 07:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no evidence that this is autobiographical; it is posted from an IP belonging to Virginia Commonwealth University rather than Alperovitz's own University of Maryland. As he is obviously notable, it really doesn't matter much. "Gar Alperovitz" gets 45,300 hits on Google (I doubt there are many others with that name), 933 hits on Google Books, and 249 hits on Google Scholar. His 1965 book Atomic diplomacy which has been republished in at least three additional editions (1966, 1985 and 1994), is available in thirteen Swedish research libraries in its first English edition alone, and a Swedish translation was published in 1973. u p p l a n d 09:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Move to Gar Alperovitz. --AlexWCovington (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep, some cleanup required. Nomination borders on vandalism. Monicasdude 20:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Gar Alperovitz. Notability is obvious. As for the nomination, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Ikkyu2 21:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per u p p l a n d and Ikkyu2. EdGl 22:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Move to Gar Alperovitz also a good idea. Cleanup definitely needed too. An article in poor shape, but appears to a notable academic. (sorry, forgot to sign this earlier) --Wingsandsword 19:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but move to Gar Alperovitz. The problem is not the nomination but a wholly unreferenced article with a mis-capitalized title that made its content seem suspect. Cleanup needed.--MayerG 05:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Move per above. Include redirect. Notable author and academic. TMS63112 18:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Changing my vote to Keep, see below, Delete - his citation record on Google Scholar is wholly non-notable. Most academics accumulate similar citation/publication records over the course of their careers. If we keep him, then we need pages for most US academics. -- Pierremenard 08:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm a US academic. Most of us do not accumulate a similar record.--MayerG 15:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, he has 28 citations. I do believe that most academics can surpass 28 citations, no? -- Pierremenard 02:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC) . Oops, did not count citations at the end of his record. 48 citations. Still less than average for a career number, no? -- Pierremenard 02:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Why do you think it is relevant to focus on one and only one of the indications of notability I mentioned above. Why do you think Google Scholar alone gives an accurate picture of an academic who has been active since the 1960s, when it has a bias towards electronic publications from the last few years? The fact that his dissertation from 1965 has been re-published thrice and translated to Swedish, a language with a much smaller book market than English, says something, doesn't it? (BTW, checking the KVK, I now find a German translation from 1966, as well as a German translation of one of his other books, in German titled Hiroshima: die Entscheidung für den Abwurf der Bombe.) Are you just trying to be the Devil's Advocate? u p p l a n d 06:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
        • You are right. I don't know how I missed your comment above on this page - you have clearly established notability. -- Pierremenard 07:22, 11 February 2006 (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.