Talk:Ralph Prator

Discussion during review at Articles for Creation
I'm not convinced that this college administrator has achieved encyclopedic notability. As I write this, the draft has only two sources. The one that supports most of the material is an obituary in the Local section of the Los Angeles Times. Unlike most family-written local obituaries, this one does have a by-line. But the author is someone who attended the subject's college and who now teaches at it. And the other source, Santa Susana Press, is affiliated with that same college. So, there's no independent sourcing here. And the very fact that the Times chose to publish the obituary in its Local section, and not in its main section, suggests that the paper itself didn't believe that the subject was of anything more than local interest. Conceivably, "inherent notability" might be claimed under item 6 of WP:NACADEMICS. But this argument works only if San Fernando Valley State College can somehow be deemed a "major academic institution". I'm not sure it can, but others might disagree. If so, it will be good to see some demonstration of that claim (any Nobel Laureates on the teaching staff? Consistent high rankings from reliable sources that make such rankings?  Something else?). On a less basic note, I was a little surprised to see that no mention was made of the circumstances that led to the subject stepping down from the presidency of the college, even though he continued to teach there. A quick reading of the obituary suggests that the action might have been done under controversial circumstances, specifically a perceived lack of interest in minority recruitment. Our overall policy of presenting even-handed neutral information requires that we not restrict article content to "positive" material. If the draft's creator has any comments or questions, I'll be happy to discuss. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your critique. I agree that the book written by Santa Susana Press should not be the only source, since that press is affiliated with the university.  However, I disagree with you about the independence of the obituary in the Los Angeles Times.  The author of the obituary was a journalist on staff with the Los Angeles Times at the time she wrote the obituary.  She became a faculty member at the university several years after she wrote the article.  Her graduation from the school is incidental.  It seems draconian to say that a source cannot be cited in Wikipedia if the author of the source once attended the same school that the subject of the article is affiliated with.  And I haven't seen that rule in the Wikipedia notability guidelines.  As for the criticism that the obituary was published in the Local section of the paper, remember that Local in Los Angeles is the San Fernando Valley, with a population of almost two million people.  It's not a backwater.  As for the question of inherent notability, note that San Fernando Valley State College (now California State University, Northridge) is the largest university in the region, and the second largest university in the city of Los Angeles (which itself is the second largest city in the United States).  CSUN is not a research university like UCLA or USC, but it is a major university that is one of the largest in the state of California, with a number of attributes that make it notable.  It has several impressive rankings that are listed at California_State_University,_Northridge.  None of this would have been possible without Ralph Prator's leadership as the first president of the university.  At any rate, I've taken to heart your comments about even-handed neutral information and added several citations that show the circumstances under which Ralph Prator resigned in 1968.

Ungathering (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've responded to reviewers' comments about multiple sources by adding several new citations that come from different newspapers, books, and dissertations. I have also removed the citation to the book published by the Santa Susana Press.  In terms of the multiple articles from the Los Angeles Times being considered "one source" or "multiple sources," see Multiple Sources in Talk:Notability.

Ungathering (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:NACADEMIC
Another response on my talk page ~Kvng (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm wondering kvng, under criteria 6 of WP:NACADEMIC, wouldn't he be notable? ("6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.") Galobtter (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * That looks like a promising angle. We'd have to establish that San Fernando Valley State College could be considered a major academic institution in 1958-1968 when the subject was in this post. ~Kvng (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "In 1964, the pioneering computer lab was moved into quarters in the newly completed Sierra Hall building complex, and student enrollment reached nearly 12,000." Relevant discussions I found were this and this. 12000 students does seem in the range and it probably granted Ph.Ds by then so it seems "likely" to pass AfD to me. Galobtter (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Addendum: according to this article enrollment reached 16,000, which would be somewhere I assume top 100 universities by enrollment at that time. Galobtter (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * All articles should contain an assertion of notability telling readers why the subject is important. The Impact section of this article currently asserts that his notability comes from growing the university quickly. If you're going to go with the major academic institution angle, you should include something about that there and probably the lead too.
 * I'm not sure if you're aware, but the procedure from here is for you to make any necessary improvements and resubmit the draft. It will then be reviewed again by someone else in due course. ~Kvng (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not the author of the article - I'm another reviewer. I just noticed this draft. Haha. Also the lead sentences does state he is the president, and the impact section talks about his impact as president at the university. I personally would accept. Galobtter (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)