Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurence M. Vance

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 No consensus; keep for now but revisit later. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 08:03Z

[edit] Laurence M. Vance

Laurence M. Vance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Reason DGG 05:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Reason got omitted, so I add: Non notable author. Writer of several books, but with almost no reviews, none for most of them--and none at all in mainstream media. Ditto for video interview. Article pushes POV of the subject. I realize this is not an autobio, but it certainly reads like one. If non-verifiable material were removed, if there would be nothing left. Listed for prod, but tag removed.

Keep First, let me state that I removed the tag and was in the process of adding sources when you nommed this article here. That is perfectly fine, but I wanted to make sure you and the other editors understand that my removal of the prod tag wasn't in bad faith. It was just my first step in working to add sources and clean-up the article, as per the tag's instructions. With that stated, I would note the following about DGG's edit summaries' claims and those he notes above in the nomination:

• On notability: Vance's work has been published in either electronic or hardcopy format by LewRockwell.com, Antiwar.com, Mises.org, IHS Press, and Foundation for Economic Education. Notability here may be drawn from the fact that he has been published in numerous sources which have thus far been deemed by the community to be notable.
• On POV-pushing: I certainly share many of Vance's views, but I wear them on my sleeve and try to comply with WP:NPOV. Now, I am not sure which parts DGG considers to be in non-compliance because DGG has not discussed them on the talk page or corrected them himself. I would invite other editors to determine whether the verbiage constitutes POV-pushing.
• On vanity: I am not and have never been Laurence Vance, nor have I been asked by Vance to write/edit this article. I believe that other editors will vouch for the fact that I exist!

DickClarkMises 06:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I never thought you were, nor that you had been asked to write it. Just that he was presented in a way that is normally associated with vanity. An uncritical admirer often does that, even without intending to. DGG 23:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

DGG: Again, I am not claiming to be perfect. I think every contributor's work, including my own, can be improved by input from others. If you think the style of the text is in conflict with WP:NPOV or some other Wikipedia policy, please make it compliant. Thus far, I'm still not sure of the specific problems that you are seeing, and without specific examples it is hard to make things better. I'm also not sure that simple NPOV compliance issues are germane to an AfD, especially since you seem to indicate that you don't believe I am acting in bad faith. I suppose you won't want to do this till after this current AfD finishes out, but if the article is kept I hope you'll collaborate with myself and others on the article talk page to make the article better. DickClarkMises 01:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think Dick is doing wrong here, the subject has some external currency and appears to be getting better sourced with each edit, so I'll go with a weak keep for now, revisit in a month or so to see a more settled version. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Lexis/Nexis has a few hits for him, but they almost admit "this guy means nothing." For example, the following, from a wire service called Inter Press Service that I had never heard of before, in September,

"Laurence M. Vance, a freelance writer and an adjunct instructor in accounting and economics at Pensacola Junior College in Pensacola, Fla., wrote in a recent commentary posted at LewRockwell.com...."

He seems to have made about as big an impact on the print press as, say, a local realtor. Uucp 16:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what in that statement "almost admits" that "this guy means nothing"? It is common for editorials to give information about the author (i.e. "the author is currently a fellow at the Hoover Institution and was U.S. Secretary of State from 1971 to 1977."). Oh yeah, Keep per Dick and the publications he lists. Allon Fambrizzi 02:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi

Since when is being an "adjunct instructor in accounting and economics" notable? If that's the best credit the paper can give you, you don't deserve a wikipedia article. Uucp 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete There's nothing in the article to suggest that this person satisfies notability requirements. Meghann 05:19, 23 December 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.