Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Frodeman

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 Keep. No difficulty in finding reliable sources. Clearly meets criteria for WP:PROF per well-known works established. Also, the absence of birthdate has no relation to reinforcement of notability. Remember that even Jimbo doesn't know his exact birthday. @pple complain 14:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Frodeman

Robert Frodeman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete contested prod; very short article written by an editor whose username "Frodeman" suggests a WP:COI. Fails WP:PROF, and so nn that we don't know where or when he was born red flags of non-notability in modern biographies - for those who disagree on that point: what sort of biography would you expect to see in any almanac, encyclopedia, or any source that omits these basics - if we can't come up with them from some RS, tells you a lot about the person's coverage in RSes. Carlossuarez46 21:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 22:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. —A. B. (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Subdolous 22:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 00:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the claims of COI and so nn as not to have a birthdate are probably incompatible--if he or his immediate family wrote it, they could have inserted it had they thought of it--but it's just an inadequately written faculty article--too modest to even mention his positions and degrees. I added the five books he's written or edited and a mention on his 30-some articles. His work has about 100 refs in Google Scholar. Two of his books have about 400 library holdings each. He's editor of 2 major ref. works. The appropriate thing to do for articles like this is to suggest to the author that s/he expand it. I do not know how careful a search was made to find "no significant coverage"--I found book reviews and references to his work just in Google Scholar and WorldCat. There is no reason to assume a poor quality article means a non-notable person. No, I still haven't found his birth date. But that wouldnt have been what made him notable.DGG (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Certainly not incompatible - one of the major problems with COI is that you only get the information they want to tell not the whole story as we expect in biographies. Carlossuarez46 03:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG. --A. B. (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Multiple hits when I did a 30-second Google's News Archive. Here's one from the Chronicle of Higher Ed:
--A. B. (talk) 02:05, 6 November 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.