Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Warschauer

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 delete. --Coredesat 22:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Warschauer

Mark Warschauer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Does not appear to be notable, the tone of the article is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia isn't an essay space. (Prod was attempted, but removed). Cheers, Afluent Rider 08:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, although this article is clearly causing some people an awful lot of amusement. From the edit history, it seems to be about a non-notable academic actually called Mark Warschauer (who is frequently an "associate aardvark", it seems), rather than the academic paper which is currently here. Regardless, neither paper nor academic (nor aardvark) should be here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, immaterial to an encyclopedia, author should try a scientific publication Alf photoman 17:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• ... ?! Delete as an absolute mess. Is this vandalism or just general mayhem? Neither the guy whose name is at the top of the page, nor the one whose abstract has appeared there, seem to be notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the present material. It is, as it says, the outline of a class presentation.

As for the subject of the article before it got vandalized, Associate Professors are not always notable. As judged by his actual bio at http://www.gse.uci.edu/faculty/markw/markw_biography.php, he does not yet seem to be, but it is not easy to tell, as he is a member of three different departments. Considering the history of the article, it should be recreated properly to see if N can be asserted, for it was just a stub before the library school students got hold of it. DGG 04:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Depending on the version you look at, it's either obvious WP:OR, or just an article about a non-notable assistant professor. I replaced the version that looks like an encyclopedia article, since the cut-and-paste research paper looks like recent vandalism (or possibly just a serious misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is), not a real version of the article. Dave6 ^talk 08:55, 21 February 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.