Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan V. Smith, Ph.D

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 Speedy Delete, CSD G7 by Fabrictramp. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stan V. Smith, Ph.D

Stan V. Smith, Ph.D (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Re-creation of an article deleted twice previously, and at leat one of those was writen by Smith. Edit summary indicates that Smith had someone write the article on his behalf, something which that author has since admitted. Self-promotional, only primary sources cited. Salting might be an option, given Smith's previous actions. Note also that Smith is the main author of Hedonic damages, a legal principle which he claims to have introduced; I would have submitted that for AfD, but that principle does seem to be widely recognized, so I tagged it for COI and primary-sources issues instead. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we not salt this page? I will explain to Stan that he is not to try to re-create it and it instead needs to be written by a neutral third party. Kwarnimo (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete and Salt for recreation of previously deleted material. Pharmboy (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I reiterate my request to not have this page salted? I have talked to Stan and he understands the idea that this needs to be a neutral article written by neither him nor me. After talking with Realkyhick I understand what needs to be done, and apologize for any inconvenience my actions may have caused to the Wikipedia community. Kwarnimo (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that him getting a 3rd party to write the article is still a conflict of interest. I struck my salt request, but there is still the question of notability (which may just be a matter of proper sources) and the conflict of interest when someone close to him (friend, aquantance, employee) writes the article. In any event, I would STRONGLY suggest that whoever writes the article do some significant reading of the policies and learning what is appropriate in the Manual of Style, and even look at similar articles before they begin. Then we don't have to do this again. Pharmboy (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a side note, this isn't eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted material. One delete was because it was a duplication of another article (which has since been deleted through a prod, the other delete was an expired prod. Neither deletion fits the criteria of G4. --Fabrictramp (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment on salting / name of article It doesn't seem like the article meets the current naming guidelines. If and when the article is recreated, it should be as Stan V. Smith or Stan Smith (economist), rather than recreating under Stan V. Smith, Ph.D. (If the article is kept, it should be move to one of the other two names mentioned.) --Fabrictramp (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be an acceptable course of action to change the link in the hedonic damages article to point to Stan Smith (economist) and basically let this page die? This way the current controversy over self authoring / whatnot will be satisfied, and if in the future a 3rd party wants to research and write an un-biased article about Stan it can proceed on a fresh page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwarnimo (talk • contribs) 22:03, 17 January 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.