- John Dwyer (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Cbrown1023 closed the discussion as "no concensus", defaulting to keep. I feel that the only reason for the appearance of no consensus was an influx of sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets (does it matter at this point what kind of puppet they are), and that the clear consensus of the remaining participants was to delete. Additionally, AfDs are decided not as a majority vote but on the strength of the arguments, and the sockpuppets did not present any compelling policy-based arguments for their keep !votes. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete, or, if not, Relist. I strongly disagree with the "no consensus" closure by Cbrown123 and support David Epstein's comments. I provide below a slightly modified copy of the message I had left at Cbrown123's talk page (sorry to cross-post but in this case it is unavoidable). I think that it would have been better to give this AfD more time or, if a decision had to be made now, "delete" would have been more justified. I have been fairly actively involved in acdemia-related AfDs lately (I think during the last month I have participated in over 80% of them). I had not seen such a weak case being resolved as anything other than delete before. There were no serious arguments put forward by the "keep" proponents other than the fact that the subject is a department chair at Richmond who is well respected and admired by his students and his colleagues. That may well be so, but it does nothing to establish notability pursuant to any of the existing notability guidelines, such as WP:N, WP:BIO or WP:PROF. No mentions of his work by other sources (let alone wide citability) have been produced or found. The publication record of the subject is very meager and a substantial chunk of them are essentially self-published (the Algana Associates ones). The people who provided "keep" votes are all new SPA users who by their own admission are either students or colleagues of the subject. Even if they are not actual sockpuppets of the subject of the article, User:Dwyerj, they clearly operated as his meatpuppets, per WP:MEAT and their votes, essentially obtained by vote stacking, should have been treated accordingly. There is an open suspected sockpuppet case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dwyerj. Moreover, the "keep" SPA proponents have engaged in other unseemly tactics in relation to this AfD such as creating a content fork D function when it became clear that Dwyer function was likely to be deleted. This kind of behaviour should not be rewarded. The timing of the closure was also problematic. There were two recent "delete" votes (the last two votes in this AfD, from April 25 and April 27) and more people would have commented given a bit of extra time (several regular academic-related AfD participants have not commented on this AfD yet). Given all of this I don't see how a "no consensus" closure was appropriate at this time. Nsk92 (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete. Absolutely no policy or evidence based arguments were given for keeping., whereas the case for deletion was was properly argued. All of the supporters for keeping were single purpose accounts who made WP:ILIKEIT arguments. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete. per David Eppstein, Nsk92, Phil Bridger. All !votes citing policy and reflecting prior WP consensus on these matters were for delete. The no consensus keep seems to have been derived from a straight vote counting exercise where keep spas predominated. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete, per above. The only credible argument in favor of keeping is being the chair of (something) in an apparently non-accredited university, and a marginal publication record, much of which appears to be either incorrect (per the reference in Eulerian path or a neologism. Furthermore, all the "keep" votes were from SPAs and IPs, and some seem to have errors in fact ("deputy head" of the "computer science" department is unverified, and should have been verifiable, and his present university does seem to be unaccredited) as well as errors of interpretation of Wikipedia policies. (Note that I'm the AfD nominator, but I've acceded to AfD decisions which seem plausible, but that I've disagreed with.) The fact that the article creator didn't comment on the AfD might also be noted in regard the meatpuppet accusation, but it might be that he is belatedly observing WP:COI. Or it could be, as claimed by the DR nominator, that he commented without logging in.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, delete article, and then make an article about a guy of the same name that appears on online version of San Francisco Chronicle "how someone in such a prominent position at one of the nation's most distinguished universities (...) nationally known scholar in environmental law property rights, co-authoring two books,"[1]. That one at least has one notable source asserting his notability. The AfD was a joke with a lot of
delete keep votes that should have been ignored. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete on basis of arguments above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Overturn and delete per nom. Lots of SPAs voting for keep without a good plicy reason to keep the thing, versus a lot of votes for delete which actually gave reasons and weren't SPAs. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and keep article. A lot of the delete arguments have been made on the false premise that the individual is not a department head or that if at all, the institution lacks accreditation. Both of these accusations are false, the individuals in question have failed to properly represent the credentials of the institution. Furthermore, many arguments above cite the history of 'keep' voters which they argue should disqualify their votes. To my mind, wikipedia is not a community where established users can bully new ones to the point of disenfranchisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokoshaggy (talk • contribs) 13:32, April 28, 2008
- The above !vote was submitted by an editor who has no contributions outside the AfD and this DR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It might also be pointed out the first claim that he is a department head is here. It was stated in the article that he was a "deputy department head", but that claim has not been verified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, another straw man approach to discrediting my argument. Presumably, my vote shouldn't count because I've had no previous edits outside this subject? On the issue of the individual being a department head, please google the individual's page at Richmond University. I believe it says that he has been a department chair of his current university. Some may argue that this counts for nothing as the institution above is unaccredited - I can't say this enough - that is FALSE. Interestingly enough, many of the proponents for an overturn have magically taken interest in this subject within the last day... Just a thought.Kokoshaggy (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, plese, give me a break. OK, let's take these in order.
- First, yes, Arthur Rubin is incorrect and the fact that Dwyer had been a Department Chair at Richmod for twelve years was brought up in the AfD, by Dwyer himself. I think that the fact was indeed a Department Chair at Richmod should be taken for granted; it is confirmed by Dwyer's profile at Richmond [2] and that is good enough for me. I certainly knew this at the time of the AfD and never made any arguments to the contrary. However, for me, the fact that he was a Chair at Richmond changes very little. Richmond is not a research-oriented university (see more on this below) and it is not authorized by the U.K. government to grant any degrees (graduate or undergraduate, again see more on this below). The key factor in determining academic notability is having made a significant impact in his field, as evidence by the work of other scientists using his. In this case NO such citations at all (let alone no high citability) have been demonstrated. For me, and I believe, for the othere "delete" voters, that has always been the primary consideration and that is what I had argued all along.
- Second, regarding accreditation. I'll provide a fairly detailed verifiable info here for the benefit of other participants in this AfD. In the UK there is a two-tiered governmental accreditation system for colleges and universities. The first tier, the so-called "Recognized Bodies" are those institutions that have been authorized by the UK government to award college-level degrees. The list of these "Recognized Bodies" is available at the UK govermental website [3]. Richmond IS NOT on this list so it is not empowered by the UK government to award college-level degrees. The second tier is the so-called "Listed Bodies", which are institutions that do not have independent degree-awarding powers but are authorized by the UK government to offer courses that may lead to degrees granted by some "Recognized Bodies". Richmond IS on the list of Listed Bodies[4]. Here are some quotes from the website of the UK Department for Universities, Innovation and Skills:"The UK authorities recognise those institutions which have been granted degree awarding powers by either a Royal Charter, Act of Parliament or the Privy Council. These are known as recognised bodies. All UK universities and some higher education colleges are recognised bodies. ... Other institutions, which do not have the power to award their own degrees, may provide full courses which lead to a degree of a recognised body. These are known as listed bodies...All the degrees awarded by recognised UK bodies at their own institution or through listed bodies are recognised degrees...Awarding bodies not on our list of Recognised Bodies will not be awarding recognised UK degrees"[5]. The degrees granted by Richmond are validated by the Open University Validation Services[6] and the Open University itself is a "Recognized Body". The bottom line, however, is that Richmond is not a "Recognized Body" and it does not have independent power to award college degrees in the U.K. However, in the U.S. Richmond is accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools[7], which, as far as I can tell, makes Richmond fully accredited in the U.S.
- The key consideration, however, is that Richmond is not a research-oriented university and that is what I argued in the AfD at length. Richmond does not grant any doctoral degrees in any subject (recognized or not). ALL arts and exact sciences faculty are lumped into a single department (Department of Arts &Sciences) with the entire staff of ONLY 27 faculty members, many of whom are adjuncts[8]. As far as I can tell the Department of Arts and Sciences at Richmond does not even offer any Masters degrees, but only three kinds of Bachelor degrees[9] Being a department chair at this kind of an institution is certainly not indicative of academic notability, even if Richmond were a "Recognized Body". Nsk92 (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the interests of full disclosure, it turns out the Richmond is authorized to award degrees under a special UK law from 2006[10]. In view of this, I don't quite understand why Richmond is not listed as a "Recognized Body" and why it needs degree validation by the Open University, but, nonetheless, there it is. It does not change my views regarding this AfD and its outcome, however. Nsk92 (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- not if such is the close here at Deletion Review--we frequently close as relist, and it is relisted.DGG (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete. Discount the puppets and you'll see a strong consensus for deletion. Should there be a relisting, there should be an immediate notice stating that all meatpuppets and sockpuppets will be discounted, and repeated performance by such puppets could result in some sanctions for disrupting an AfD. B.Wind (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- GROUNDS FOR APPEAL ARE FALSE. The grounds for appeal seem to lie in the accusation that I [usangel] and the others represent an "influx" of sockpuppets or meatpuppets. I am a degree student ready to express opinions on issues that I feel strongly about and this is one of those issues. I am not pretending to be, nor controlled as a puppet of, Dr Dwyer. Further, since I know the identities of others accused of being sockpuppets, I can categorically confirm that none of them are pretending to be Dr Dwyer or Dr Dwyer's puppets. The issue in this page is not to backtrack over Dr Dwyer's notability, rather to establish that the grounds for appeal are blatantly false. When the wiki editor who has thus far made so many errors of fact, receives the results of his requested IP trace, he will then know that he has made six further mistakes about the identities those of us who genuinely expressed clear views. Now we all know wiki is a great resource but please try to discourage rogue editors, especially when they make so many mistakes of fact and judgement. [user:usangel] The preceding comment was added by User:195.54.243.250. Nsk92 (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is not "pretending to be Dr Dwyer" but acting together as a group to flood your opinion into Wikipedia's processes. -- Kesh (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the other contributions from your IP were to list his thus far unpublished, un-peer-reviewed publications in List of important publications in mathematics; putting his paper in the same section (Graph Theory) as publications by Euler, Erdos, Ford--Fulkerson is rather preposterous, don't you think? Nonetheless, your judgment is understandably clouded by your proximity to Dwyer. Obvious this was not helped by the fact that as a student, you really don't have that much familiarity with academia or what passes for notability in it. These discussions are not meant to like political ones, where one simply gathers up one's friends who are guaranteed to parrot your opinion. This type of political maneuvering is not only frowned upon, but often (as in this case) will invalidate your opinion in the eyes of those who run Wikipedia. If you don't see why, I suggest you read up on WP:COI and WP:SOCK. --C S (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete. Most or all of the keep opinions were from SPAs or socks. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete. The closing admin made an honest mistake in interpreting the confusion of community consensus mixed with vociferous meat puppets as "no consensus." However, I think it is clear that this article, and the related articles all go against the community consensus of notability requirements. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete, simply cannot see any grounds to close as no consensus or relist. We all make mistakes. Deiz talk 12:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, it seems a number of editors didn't have a chance to comment on the article given the haste with which the discussion was closed. Yes we all make mistakes but I'd like to think that admins take more that a few seconds to read AfD discussions before deciding. --Deadly∀ssassin 03:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The discussion was kept open for a bit more than 6 days, from opening to closure, also, there was only one comment on day 27, and all former edits are from day 25 or before, so I don't see any haste that could be argued as an unproper closure --Enric Naval (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Delete Then salt the page, block all of the sockpuppets, and call his mother to tell her what her little Johnnie's been up to. It's too bad someone didn't speedy this before all the drama started. ;) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
