Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Ewen

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. – Avi 07:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stuart Ewen

Stuart Ewen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Vanity, non-notability? (let's find out) Memmke 10:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Conflict of interest, something User:Stuartewen has been warned about before he started writing the article. --Lijnema 10:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - violates WP:AUTO. MER-C 11:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly a violation of WP:AUTO. Also may be a copyvio from the Hunter College website. Movementarian (Talk) 12:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Hunter College not a copyright violation. Citations will be added. This was posted at the request of many who noted that there was no article on Stuart Ewen and that there should be —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartewen (talk • contribs) 2006-11-20 16:00:33
  • Stuart, you do understand why the article has been listed, right? The guidelines on creating an article about yourself are quite clear, and the related articles about original research, verifyability, conflicts of interest, and having a neutral point of view as well. As for the copyright, there's no mention on the article that there is permission from Hunter College to copy the text over here on Wikipedia and change it to being licenced under the GFDL (which you'd really need for a text that has a copyright notice attached, see Wikipedia:Copyrights). --Lijnema 18:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Notable as distinguished professor at a major university with numerous scholarly books which are widely reviewed in multiple independent scholary publications. (Note: I absolutely do not get my shorts in a knot if a user with a name similar to a subject edits. The Guideline cited is not an ironclad rule. It means nothing when the subject is inherently notable. I edit Thomas Edison and I am not Thomas Edison. It takes maybe 10 seconds to create a new ID, so why punish authors who are too honest to do that and reward authors who use an anonymous ID, as to create an article about their garage band?) Edison 18:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is a copyvio of a clearly marked, copyrighted page. That alone makes it eligible for deletion unless the copyright owner (Hunter College) gives permission. It is also written by the subject of the article, which violates WP:AUTO. I am not opposed to an article being written about the professor, but this particular article needs to be deleted. Movementarian (Talk) 22:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete-for one, as a professor, you ought to know what copying from another source/web site and not attributing it is called. It starts with a p. Accordingly, this page automatically gets a fail, as a potential copyvio, definite conflict of interest, and very weak assertion of meeting WP:BIO and/or WP:PROF. Seraphimblade 07:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• There are two issues here:
  1. If it's copyvio, it should be deleted out of hand, and User:Stuartewen slapped with an especially large trout for plagiarism.
  2. If the issue is just whether the guy is notable, I'd say Keep. The guy's book PR!: A Social History of Spin did garner him a couple of interviews -- granted, one is just a website, and one appears to be a D-list magazine. But websites that are effectively on-line magazines, we'd better get use to considering them as equal to small magazines, pace Slate and Salon, granting that committment.com is not in the same league. There's also quite a long a review at PR Watch, an arm of the Center for Media and Democracy, which is real and somewhat significant organization, the interview being reprinted from The Progressive, which appears to be a real magazine that publishes work from people you've actually heard of (Barbara Ehrenreich, Molly Ivins, Howard Zinn). So with this book he's perhaps broken out a tad from being a strictly academic author and garnered a small slice of real-world buzz. I also see on Amazon that the book was reviewed by Publisher's Weekly; whether that means anything I don't know. And he does have a few other books out, some with Basic Books which if I recall correctly is a real publisher that places books in general-interest bookstores. Herostratus 14:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Herostratus. Copyvio issue should be addressed through normal copyvio process; AfD result of Keep is no license to ignore copyrights. JamesMLane t c 01:13, 25 November 2006 (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.