Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Dudley Geer

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 procedural close defaulting to keep. No prejudice against a new nomination by a non-sockpuppet. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Dudley Geer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - This article is not notable to be added on Wikipedia. AdamSmithUS (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know how Geer ranks in notability but that list of papers needs to be cut at least in half. It looks like it was cut and pasted from a CV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Withdrew due to sock nom. Here is William Dudley Geer obituary which verifies most of the article's highlights. The article was created by another Geer User:SamuelTGeer in 2004, who also uploaded old pictures of the Geer family, presently unused. I don't believe any of his many titles or positions pass WP:ACADEMIC, Dean not high enough. Nothing for WP:GNG in Google Books. Nothing in Google Scholar. I checked commercial databases for older offline material (JSTOR, Gale, ProQuest etc) and nothing there. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We have a long list of publications. I am not familiar with US academic titles, but I thought Dean was a high status. I accept that there may be COI with the creator, but the question is notability, and I would have thought it was adequate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ACADEMIC it says Dean is not high enough position to be considered "Lesser administrative posts (Provost, Dean, Department Chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify". The publications are actually limited for an academic over a lifetime career, nearly non-existent on scholar.google.com in terms of other citations, his pubs seem to be largely forgotten by his peers. Don't get me wrong I don't care about COI morally, just mentioned it because he was added not by a neutral party who knows of him, but a family member, which is a sign to look into notability more closely. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Close with no prejudice: this is an apparent bad-faith nomination by a blocked sockpuppet account.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.