Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milton Heumann

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 Keep and clean up. Espresso Addict 20:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Milton Heumann

Milton Heumann (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirolovesswords (talk • contribs) 21:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No sources (seems to be OR), fails WP:PROF, which is the guideline in this case. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:PROF. Notability doesn't seem to be there Bfigura ^(talk) 23:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He's somewhat notable (imo). Tiptopper 23:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Milton Heumann has fulfilled several of the criteria needed under the notability guidelines. This person is significant in his field not only by his publications but by his status as a professor II. A professor II (which isn't on wikipedia) is a person that is so highly regarded as an expert in his field that the university promotes them to a professor II. Which is verified by the school.

His many publications are significant and well cited. Evidence to “Ranked in Top 25 (by year of Ph.D.) in terms if number of times work is cited. "The Political Science 400:Citation, by Ph.D. Cohort and by Ph.D. Granting institution”” And was awarded by the American Political Science Association (APSA) for best Doctoral presentation. The only one that year.

Most of these can be found in the references which include the Rutgers Biographical information.

The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.

The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.72.57 (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC) — 68.193.72.57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete - No evidence of notability that meets WP:PROF. Listing "classroom stories" and "quotes" does nothing to help this article. -- MightyWarrior 22:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 00:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• comment I removed the unsourced "classroom stories" and "quotes" sections. Pete.Hurd 04:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Tiptopper and above reasoning.JJJ999 05:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I thank Pete for the initial cleanup--we shuld go on a systematic hunt for those sort of sections. There probably are a few--a very few--professors where that sort of material is significant and documentable. The information about citations, though expressed a little oddly, is enough to show notability. The [publications would be clearer if the books are separated from the journals. (The rank of Professor II, at Rutgers and some other public universities, especially unionized ones such as Rutgers, is an attempt to provide a separate higher salary range for the more senior or more distinguished professors to compete with elite private universities--as such public universities usually pay on a fixed rank/longevity scale. It represents somewhat more than Professor I where it exists, but how much more would depend on the University. I do not know Rutgers' standards in this respect.)DGG (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Looks superficially impressive, though the tone of the article inspires little confidence.--Bedivere 18:48, 7 October 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.