Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Wolk


 * 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   no consensus, default to keep in the absence of any BLP issues. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Wolk

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

No particular notability; interestingly, written in the same resume-like tone by the author of Amory Lovins and Michael Potts, which have similar POV issues. Biruitorul Talk 18:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am the principal author. In defense of the proposition that Andrew Wolk is a notable academic, I would cite the Wikipedia guideline: "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable.... 1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources."

Wolk, a faculty member at MIT, is regarded by independent sources, such as the Boston Globe and Fast Company Magazine, as a significant expert in his areas of social impact research and social entrepreneurship. To document this fact, I have added links to a recent Globe interview with Wolk on his publication of a book, Business Planning for Social Impact; and to a Fast Company Magazine profile of him.

I would argue that if there are POV issues with this article, the proper course would be to undergo the normal editing process rather than a deletion of the article.Jhutson64 (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete unless notability can be proven aside from sources already given. The only reliable, third party source given was the Boston Globe interview, but the bulk of the source were the subject's own words, except for one paragraph which concerned solely his work with Root Cause, and it does not state in any form that the man is regarded as a significant expert in his field.--Samuel Tan (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to weak keep (see below)-- Samuel  Tan  10:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Substantive external media coverage exists in multiple, reputable online and dead-tree sources. Whether or not he is a "significant expert in his field" is irrelevant - that is neither objectively definable nor a deletion criteria. FCYTravis (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Principal author again: I just added a link to Boston College, Carroll School of Management, Profile of Faculty Member Andrew Wolk, which notes, "Wolk has spoken on social ventures at Harvard University, and The Vermont for Business Responsibility, National Gathering for Social Entrepreneurs, More then Money and United Leaders conferences." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhutson64 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Principal author: I just added a link to a second Boston Globe article, 'Streetwise MBA' Program Helps Small Business Owners Advance, August 21, 2006, describing the impact of Wolk's work and quoting him on launching a new approach to social entrepreneurship.Jhutson64 (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete He is not a notable academic. In contradiction to the page cited above, The Boston College faculty list does not include him, and he is listed on the Boston College Business Institute page as an "affiliate"  No publications are listed anywhere--he is apparently a successful consultant. Whether he's successfull enough for notability is another matter. That he has given a number of talks at various meetings is not notability. DGG (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Principal author: Wolk's notability as an academic, as an author, and as a social innovator, is established by profiles and interviews of him in credible secondary sources, such as The Boston Globe. His three publications, listed in the Wikipedia entry, include a Root Cause How-to Guide, entitled Business Planning for Enduring Social Impact (which you can find both on the Root Cause site and on Amazon.com); a chapter in the Small Business Administration’s annual report to the president of the United States, titled “Social Entrepreneurship and Government: A New Breed of Entrepreneurs Developing Solutions to Social Problems”; and a white paper copublished with the Aspen Institute, titled Advancing Social Entrepreneurship: Recommendations for Policy Makers and Government Agencies. The fact that he has been a featured speaker at prominent conferences shows that he is well-regarded and notable in his field.Jhutson64 (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Principal author: I have added links to Wolk's three publications, all available on the Root Cause site. I would note that the publication Business Planning for Social Impact is also offered through Amazon.com. And on the Amazon page, there are excerpts from positive reviews of the book by a fellow faculty member at MIT (where Wolk is a Senior Lecturer) and by the Chronicle of Philanthropy. For example, the book is characterized as "The gold standard in business planning for organizations addressing social problems," by Edward B. Roberts, David Sarnoff Professor, Management of Technology, MIT Sloan School of Management; Founder and Chair, MIT Entrepreneurship. This level of praise seems to cement Wolk's notability as an academic, even apart from the positive review in the Chronicle of Philanthropy.Jhutson64 (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Principal author: I have added a link to a Chronicle of Philanthropy article quoting Wolk on social entrepreneurship. Since the Chronicle is a paper of record for the philanthropic world, the fact that Wolk is profiled and quoted on his field of social entrepreneurship tends to establish his credibility and notability.Jhutson64 (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Principal author: Added link to newspaper editorial from The Advocate (Baton Rouge, LA), quoting "nationally known social entrepreneurship expert Andrew Wolk."Jhutson64 (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Changing my stance from weak delete to weak keep, because although many of the claims to notability are very shaky, a few sources do suggest notability and may fulfill the criteria in WP:PROF. Since the issue here is one of notability, I'll state my reason against and for notability.
 * Reasons against:


 * 1) Of the three profiles given, one is not substantial, another seems to be down, and the last one is not a secondary source. WP:BIO suggests that insubstantial sources can be used to establish a person's notability only when there are multiple such sources.
 * 2) Having published works does not make an academic notable; the works should be significant and well-known, and little has been shown for this point, except "positive reviews" of one book on this page of amazon.com. There are a total of four reviews, one by a colleague and three by customers.
 * 3) I have not been able to find sources that show how well-regarded the subject is from having spoken at prominent conferences. If you have such a source, link it :)
 * Reasons for:


 * 1) We have seen two secondary sources that could be used to argue that the subject is a significant expert per WP:PROF. (1) a claim to wide recognition by amazon.com, and (2) a claim to national recognition by 2theadvocate.com. Having two such sources may fulfill the first criteria in WP:BIO: "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.", unless the amazon.com editorials are considered unreliable. (Are they?)-- Samuel  Tan  10:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Principal author: Repaired broken link to MIT Entrepreneurship Center, Faculty Profile of Andrew Wolk.Jhutson64 (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Principal author: Added link to Boston Business Journal, September 5, 2003. Article quoting Wolk as an "expert" on social innovation.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2008 (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.