Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin A. Neil


 * 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. —  Scott  •  talk  10:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin A. Neil

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet standards for notability. Appears to be notable based on one allegation that was not resolved and several papers that were withdrawn. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom, fails WP:BIO, WP:ACADEMIC. ukexpat (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:GNG with news coverage dating back several decades. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  18:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  18:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:PERP: the "going back several decades" coverage is minor, local, and incidental, I don't see any basis for notability other than the stories of his alleged plagiarism, and these stories (while in high profile non-local sources such as the Chronicle of Higher Education) do not pass the standard of sustained coverage that persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * delete non notable person alleged to have been involved in a minor event that has no impact and no lasting coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

delete: I am a relative newcomer to posting in Wikipedia. Last night I posted un-sourced additions to this entry about a long-time friend to try to create some balance. The additions were removed by the initial author of the article, a writer who uses the pseudonym "nomoskedasticity." I have attempted to learn the rules today. I am a quick study.

The initial author violates Wikipedia's POV policy by highlighting one minor series of events in the subject's life without placing it in context with his overall achievements, which are significant. The overall portrayal of the subject is undeservedly negative. He actually is a pretty good guy.

A simple Google search of Nomoskedasticity's pen name suggests that he/she has a bias, bordering on obsession, with a very strict interpretation of the rules for citing sources. In one posting in a Wikipedia discussion, the author says "Anyone arguing that plagiarism isn't a serious issue for an encyclopedia needs to encounter an army of cluebats. (Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC.)" Taken literally, this is an invitation to violence against people who do not share the writer's perspective. This should rebut any inference that the writer has an open mind on his/her interpretation of the topic of plagiarism.

In another post on the Chronicle for Higher Education's site a writer using the name nomoskedasticity exhorts someone to "badger some reporters!" for coverage of a plagiarism allegation so that the news coverage could be the source of a Wikipedia page. ("UMass Plaigarist makes $166k/year" Chronicle, March 15, 2013.) This exhortation basically is an attempt to use a newspaper to "launder" original research so that it could be cited in a subsequent Wikipedia listing.

This makes me question whether nomoskedasticity wasn't the original informant for the Baltimore Sun articles mentioned in the disputed post. If so, he/she would be the original source of material that was run through a newspaper and subsequently cited in Wikipedia. I believe that this stretches Wikipedia's rules against original research.

I always like to use my name when posting opinion. Anonymous web posts are inherently unreliable because the reader cannot vet the biases and experiences of the writer.

Mark Adams, Baltimore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.197.73 (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete — per David and per nom. I don't think WP:BASIC is within reach, and the WP:BLP1E nature of coverage/events doesn't help. JFHJr (㊟) 00:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - BLP1E situation for basically obscure academic; fails to rise to our standards of notability. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  01:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

which could be a passing mention. The abstract of "Hopes of legally selling snowballs melt away before zoning board; 2 who tried to run stands from home are denied" consists of nothing but the headline--one that suggests a likely passing mention of Mr. Neil. The snippet on Google says ""We need the patience of Job somedays," says Zoning Board Chairman Benjamin A. Neil. It is here that Rosia Morgan, 69, and Timothy McGinnis, 29, found ..." which looks like a passing mention. Some articles mention that he ran for the Baltimore city council. — rybec   03:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I searched the Google News archive: [//www.google.com/search?q=Pa,+woman,+Carroll+man+admit+fracas+with+officers\u200e%22&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=newspapers#tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22Benjamin+A.+Neil%22&oq=%22Benjamin+A.+Neil%22&gs_l=serp.3...274364.276680.1.276940.4.4.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1c.1.12.psy-ab.gotoqrzjtfc&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45960087,d.aWM&fp=d4e6864e926128a8&biw=994&bih=677]. Judging from the snippets there, and from their headlines and the abstract of one, I think that two of the newspaper articles used as references in the Wikipedia article are likely to contain only passing mentions of Mr. Neil, not in-depth coverage. One of the references is titled "Pa, woman, Carroll man admit fracas with officers‎"; neither the title nor the abstract mention Mr. Neil. The snippet says "The guilty pleas were accepted by Judge Donald J. Gilmore after pretrial negotiations between Benjamin A. Neil, an assistant state's attorney, and Michael S."
 * Delete - There may not ever be a clearer example of WP:BLP1E than this. polarscribe (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The subject is not notable. Maproom (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and WP:SNOW close please? As above, this is really a one event BLP that is not notable. uhhlive (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Chairman of the zoning board for a city the size of Baltimore is a significant public office. A Google Scholar search turns up several pages of his writings in academic and professional journals. It appears that the articles subject is likely to meet the GNG even though the impetus to write the article is an event that, standing alone, would not demonstrate notability. There's a bit of a rush to judgment going on here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails SNG as a Politician and as an Academic. BLP-1E for a plagiarism scandal of some sort. Fails GNG beyond that. Carrite (talk)
 * 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.