Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin J. Badoian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 reached, which defaults to keep. The article needs cleanup though, tagged as such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Martin J. Badoian

Martin J. Badoian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article has been previously speedily deleted. The editors (correctly in my opinion) recommenced creation in a sandbox prior to February 1 and then again moved it to the mainspace - but were cautioned by other administrators that the subject was unlikely to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. They placed an Under Construction tag to hold off deletion prospects. There are also major problems with the two images that are incorporated - being continually removed by Orphanbot (due to copyright problems) but then just being replaced by the editors. Having now waiting for several days for the article to meet guidelines - it still appears that this article is a form of student adoration relating to a good teacher but who probably does not meet notability guidelines. Comments and opinions from the wider community are sought. --VS talk 21:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete or Merge wtih American Regions Mathematics League. Most of his awards are regional/local or are among larger groups (e.g. 20+ each year for the Edyth May Sliffe Award[1]. Things like Tandy Scholar -- for which the top 2% of US high school students are eligible -- are not really claims to notability (no objection to it being in the article, though). Sounds like he's a great teacher but not quite at the WP:N level, sorry to say. --Dhartung | Talk 22:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

**Note this read as Delete or Merge prior to an edit by AmelchenkoMstuczynski (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

      • My original wording restored. --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. We have promised to work on it but after the first week of working on it we have both, the other editor and I, have been very busy. We will be able to work on it though starting on Monday.

Also the two pictures are: 1. Taken by a student of his that gave us permission to use it. 2. A photograph of a yearbook cropped.

When re uploading the images I was trying to put in the copyright information and believe that I have done it the latest time that I uploaded it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amelchenko (talk • contribs) 01:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep for a high school teacher, usually recognition at a national level is necessary. The Edyth May Sliffe Award goes to over 20 math teachers a year, and is borderline distinction. The "Presidential Award for Excellence "[2] goes to 108 teachers in the math or science per year, and is also only borderline the sort of national award that matters. The of Chief State School Officers goes to 1 teacher in any subject per state per year, and might be acceptable also--their national award [3] certainly would be. What I would certainly accept: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Lifetime Achievement Awards (2 per year maximum) [4] , or Editorship of the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education or President of the NCTM. or equivalents from other societies. (But some of these will be professors of education, not actual math teachers.) DGG (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So you don't like confounder of ARML And other stuff.... truelly i don't fully know ALL his awards, he has other that werent listed...

Like serously you guys are mean. how is this artical hurting you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amelchenko (talk • contribs) 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW... http://www.ccsso.org/Projects/national_teacher_of_the_year/state_teachers/1977/1386.cfm

he got that award from Council of Chief State School Officers... look at link above.

  • Comment It's not a question of being mean or the article hurting anyone. It is a question of notability, and other troubling points brought up by VS. Mstuczynski (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Upon reflection, Reluctant Delete, with my compliments to the creators' dedication. Mstuczynski (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article clearly establishes the subject's notability. Looking at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, I read "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The authors have cited multiple secondary sources, including the Boston Globe and its Web site Boston.com, the Mathematical Association of America, and the Council of Chief State School Officers. These meet the criteria as reliable, intellectually independent, and independent sources. Moreover, Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria states that a person is generally notable who has "received significant recognized awards or honors." The article cites and sources several awards, including Massachusetts Teacher of the Year Award, Edyth May Sliffe Award, and Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching (State & National Winner). The editors should not add photos that don't have licenses. But the article is separate from the editors and should be judged on its own merits. It shows that the subject meets more than one notability criterion and provides extensive, credible references. Fg2 (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I was having trouble with the copy write status but believe I now put it up. The first photo is a personal photo by a friend that let me use it and the second is a photo of mine that I took of a yearbook and then cropped it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amelchenko (talk • contribs) 01:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Also "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amelchenko (talk • contribs) 01:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I have the utmost respect for teachers like Mr. Badoian... in fact I'm sure a lot of people know and respect high school teachers that are very similar to him, that have multiple awards and are considered "important" in their communities... but that doesn't mean that he is notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. The fact is, is that there really is only one Boston Globe article on him, the rest of the sources merely state his name as a recipient of an award or they are not strong enough sources. I'm sure he deserves recognition, but wikipedia is not the place for it... honestly this article reads more like a dedication than anything else. The fact is that he does not meet WP:BIO and therefore the article must be deleted.Rigby27 (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Didn't the other person just point out that he does fit?
    • Considering the lack of substantial sources (that only mention his name and nothing else) and what Dhartung has stated about the level of significance of the awards that he has received, IMO he doesn't meet notability requirements. Yes he has received some awards and has been mentioned in some sources, but he is a high school teacher and not really encyclopedic. Rigby27 (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Note the Keep is an unsigned comment by Amelchenko Mstuczynski (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Considering he is a high school math teacher that got all those awards, a founder of ARML, GMBL, MML. And btw places like MIT know him personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amelchenko (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment- The article also has some big POV issues, especially with the last paragraph, and if the article is kept or merged it would have to be either rewritten or edited accordingly. Rigby27 (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete The subject does not meet the basic criteria for being notable; most of the article is full of information that is not particularly notable and very strong POV. The subject's only claim to be notability is a laundry list of awards most of which are not strongly notable or widely recognized. The article reads like a resume rather than an article on a notable person. The subject has none of his own publications and is merely mentioned in passing in various newspapers. The fact that this person has been mentioned in a few news papers and academic websites by itself does not make him notable. Mentions in newspapers should be considered secondary criteria rather than basic criteria for determining notability. The only other claim of notability is relatively unknown regional awards with no nationally recognized individual awards (the awards he received on a national level are given to many people each year.) The article does not meet basic criteria, this article does not belong in an encyclopedia but perhaps academic websites where it is acceptable to post a resume.Rcurtis5 (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the Wikipedia Boy Scouts that want this deleted deserve a page of their own. Like serously? He has done more than you. A founder of ARML should be enough to be notable, but he has all those other awards just o go along side with it. Do you also know that 99% of the people that graduate from his select math class now earn 6 digit salaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amelchenko (talk • contribs) 00:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete As the initial proposer I have waited until now to consider the suitability of this article remaining in the mainspace. Having considered all of the information, and indeed having tried to assist in the article itself, I have now reached the view that it does not meet Wikipedia's Notability guidelines. In addition I make the comment - Not related to my deletion comment - that Amelchenko' broad brush general attacks on editors and their views during this process when others disagree with him are misplaced and should cease immediately.--VS talk 03:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As a supporter of keeping the article, I agree that the behavior of editors in editing both the article and the Articles for Deletion page has been regrettable. It's difficult to continue supporting keeping the article when editors behave badly. However, like VirtualSteve, I separate my opinion on the article from my opinion on its editors, and support the article in spite of its author. Fg2 (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to think we all have tried to keep an open mind despite the creators' behavior. We all have access to wp:n, wp:bio, and wp:prof and simply choose to interpret these guidelines differently. At the end of the day we have to decide for ourselves what is notable and what is not. This is not a witch-hunt for two editors, this is a rational discussion about the suitability of an article for Wikipedia. Mstuczynski (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - While most high school teachers wouldn't deserve pagespace, and even the few hundred teachers in the U.S. with over 50 years in the classroom wouldn't pass the notability bar, but I find it difficult to reconcile that every high school article seems to carry inherent notability, but by any measure one of the finest high school teachers in the country can't seem to buy notability with a properly cited article, partly because of the personal attachment one of his students, User:Amelchenko has brought to the process. BusterD (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Reluctant delete - just doesn't come up to the level of notability required. (If the article is not deleted, incidentally, it will have to be torn down and rebuilt from the stub up. The tone and style is not encylopedic; and a yearbook photo is not removed from copyright concerns by being photographed in turn.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:07, 20 February 2008 (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.