Talk:Phil Maymin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.


Chicago Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Unencyclopedic?

List of third party news items - ManBeFree (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral?

Any particular section or paragraph appear non-neutral? All the info added to the original stub is third-party verifiable and almost verbatim replicated where possible. - ManBeFree (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

While everything in this article may be true, the subject of this article does not seem to be notable enough for an encyclopedia article, especially one of such length. This article looks like someone's CV and should not be on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.49.226 (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the length. I've made it much much shorter and more encyclopedic. As for the notability guidelines, the list of about 100+ independent news items seems to satisfy it. What do you think? - ManBeFree (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Correction: the length comment was a great point, not just a good one. It reads much better now and is actually not very different from the stub it used to be. Main differences: correction to when PhD was earned, more detail about the campaign itself, and removal of the original stub's paragraph regarding political beliefs which seemed unencyclopedic. (But perhaps should be added back to quote from extensive newspaper coverage of same?) - ManBeFree (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the substantial changes and the fact that four days have elapsed since then with no further comment, I've decided to be bold and have gone ahead and removed the two tags on the main page. Please feel free to revert the main page or just add them back manually if you disagree. Please also comment here on the remaining issues if any. - ManBeFree (talk) 06:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete this article

This article should be removed/deleted from Wikipedia. It looks nothing more than a pure self serving piece of promotion with little or no significance for anyone. The author of the article even cites the PhD dissertation and the committee in the article. While studying for a PhD and getting one is a great personal achievement, it is a very common achievement and following by the example set by this article maybe every PhD holder should get a Wikipedia profile. It is not a bad exercise to remind people every once in a while that this is an Encyclopedia and as such it should not be used as a tool for self promotion.--Tubular bells83 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This comment appears to address notability, which in turn appears satisfied by the link at the top of the discussion to numerous news articles. The educational background cited above is certainly not the basis of notability. But perhaps the point is that the education section, namely the last two sentences, should be trimmed? ManBeFree (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would argue against deletion. This is a person who ran for Congress and has other notable achievements. The article format may be argued about; but, I don't think the subject is de facto deletion-worthy.--Cumulant (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)