Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Pace


 * 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. Delete as hoax DGG (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Pace

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is written about a professor Andrew Pace that graduated from U of W. Some content is about Andrew K. Pace, a different person who is a librarian. I prodded the article because Andrew Pace (grad of U of W) does not have any information about about him that I could find to source the article. Since the prod tag was removed and information was added confusing the two people (again), then I'm putting it up for Afd. If someone wants to write an article about the other Pace (Andrew K.) then they can. But let's not confuse the two by using this article as the start for Andrew K.'s entry. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not just split it into two articles with a disambig? Ventifax (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because there is not any verifiable information for this Andrew Pace. The article has been on site for a substantial amount of time without good sources being added. The current information if true is likely outdated. If someone is able to added verifiable content for this person then an article can be re-created. Keeping information about a living person on site that is not known to be accurate is not good. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is getting confusing. Andrew K. Pace has now appeared; he also "graduated summa cum laude from the University of Wyoming and is a professor emeritus at University of Pennsylvania's Wharton A-B College." Somebody, perhaps the two article authors Thepenumbra and Esasus, needs to disentangle these two Paces before we can tell whether either or both is notable. JohnCD (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed! A few days ago I researched the two Paces and found a blog entry where Andrew K. Pace mentions the error in the Andrew Pace article. Artificial Unintelligence. Thepenumbra is not a regular contributor so asking him will not get a prompt reply. This factored into my decision to prod and now Afd this article. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This should be sorted out - it's a BLP issue, these are real people (at least one of them is) and we should not be showing muddled biographies. Andrew K. is definitely the librarian and wrote the book; I can't immediately find any trace of the other - e.g. Google finds nothing for "Professor Andrew Pace", nor can I find him on the Wharton web-site. I'm beginning to wonder if he's a hoax. I'll try to find time for more research tomorrow. JohnCD (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have searched and found nothing anywhere about an Andrew Pace fitting the description given. Of course I might find something if I searched further, but if he really were "known for revolutionizing the artificial intelligence industry" then it would be trivially easy to find loads of information about him. For example, a Google search for "Andrew Pace" "University of Pennsylvania" should hit gold immediately for such a famous professor of that university. In fact if he were "known for revolutionizing the artificial intelligence industry" then I would be surprised I had not already heard of him. The only citation given in the article is a link to a web page which gives access to a list of professors at the University of Pennsylvania, but no professor Pace is listed, which is odd for someone currently teaching four courses at the university. Since he is not mentioned there the citation is spurious, and I shall delete it. I doubt that he exists, but if he does he is certainly not as eminent as the article claims. Actually whether he exists is irrelevant, because even if he does he is clearly not at all notable, and the article lacks any sources at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After I wrote the above it occurred to me to check the spuriously cited page again (the one giving a list of professors). The citation is attached to the statement "He is co-teaching MATH 029 Discrete Mathematics with Professor Shimamoto", so I checked for Professor Shimamoto as well, and would you believe he/she is also not listed? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just want to mention that an emeritus professor is very likely not to be listed on a current university page, even if he is real. (which i agree may not be the case here) DGG (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought of that. However, he is listed as currently teaching 4 courses: it is, of course, improbable that an emeritus professor would be doing so, but if he were he would still be likely to be listed. That, in fact, is why I bothered to specify "which is odd for someone currently teaching four courses at the university". (I know an emeritus professor who has continued to do a little casual teaching in his retirement, but not four regular courses.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I note below, these courses don't appear to be taught at Pennsylvania/Wharton, but they are all taught at Swarthmore, where there is not only a student Andrew Pace, but also a Prof. Shimamoto who teaches, or has taught, MATH029 Discrete Mathematics. I think this is undoubtedly a Swarthmore-originated hoax. The original author Thepenumbra has edited the Swarthmore article. JohnCD (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - this is a hoax. Even the original version by Thepenumbra had only two references - Andrew K. Pace's book, and a link to "Rate My Professor" for the U. of Pennsylvania, which does not show any Professor Pace. So no reference to establish the existence of Professor Pace. The article was then tinkered with by three IPs registered to Swarthmore College, on whose web-site we find, surprise, in a class list a student called Andrew Pace. As noted above, searches find nothing for the Professor. Conclusion: there is no evidence that he ever existed, and this article should go. That leaves Andrew K. Pace, reduced to a stub now that User:FloNight has removed from that article the fictitious material about the U. of Wyoming and "renowned for his work in engineering"; whether he is notable is another question. JohnCD (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Footnote - Google searches on the names of the courses the Prof. is supposed to be teaching, which were in the original article, all turn up Swarthmore College, not Wharton or the U. of Pennsylvania. It looks as if Swarthmore is where the hoax originated. JohnCD (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —John Z (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I also tried and failed to find any useful information about this Andrew Pace. All I found was the other guy, the librarian. We should delete this because it fails verifiability, but also because its potentially-hoaxy nature clouds the information we have about a real living person. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * delete per David Eppstein's reasoning. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to Andrew K. Pace. Bongo  matic  21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per BLP and notability. I also strongly suggest that others examine the edit history of the editor who removed the prod tag with the bad reasoning, as his actions on other articles suggest a longstanding severe problem of similar behavior on other articles. If someone could mentor this person on our actual rules for establishing notability and reliable sources a lot of trouble for many editors trying to clean up after him would be avoided in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Esasus's habit of removing prod tags without giving any reason, and arguing to keep articles in ways which suggest a lack of effort to determine the facts, and without paying much attention to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, have been mentioned repeatedly, on his talk page and elsewhere, including the Administrators' noticeboard. I am not sure anything can be done about it as long as so many Wikipedia editors take the line "he is not breaking any rule by removing prods without reason, and we won't take action merely because someone is being a nuisance, but not actually breaking any rules". JamesBWatson (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2009 (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.