Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Roper (academic)


 * 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The result was   keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Brian Roper (academic)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not notable person Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find a level of coverage to claim notability, article seems to have been created due to a single event, his controversial resignation, so one event is also an issue imo. Also as the reason for the biography creation, it could have an element of an attack page. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP He is notable enough. He has been head of one of the top 100 institutions in the UK. That alone is enough.
 * Aa42john (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - academic deans and the like are not per se notable under WP:PROF, and there is no evidence he is notable except for the one news item. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Change to Keep per the discussion below and WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Nsk92 (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Neutral Delete . There is a Brian Roper who writes on economic matters of New Zealand. Whether it is the same person I do not know. GS cites are small (h index = 7) so fails WP:Prof #1 anyway. Looks like WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC).
 * It appears to be a different person, somebody from the political science department at the University of Otago in New Zealand. Nsk92 (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only coverage available seems to be in connection with the financial scandal at London Metropolitan University, so looks like a BLP1E case. Nsk92 (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep. There is indeed a significant amount of newscoverage of him for the period 2001-2008, well before the recent financial scandal and resignation, see GNews results. In particular, he seems to have been involved in a number of highly publicized fights with the unions during that time. So looks not to be a BLP1E case and looks to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- with apologies, this is a ridiculous nomination, the man was vice-chancellor of one of the largest universities in the UK. (Vice-chancellor is equivalent to president of an American university.)  The nom has apparently failed to satisfy WP:BEFORE, otherwise he would have seen that there is extensive coverage in reliable sources; an AfD is not meant to be mounted against the current state of an article but rather whether there are sufficient sources for the person (etc.) to satisfy WP:N, which this person clearly does (in addition to Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at the links provided by Nsk92, and reading a few of them, I still fail to find any content that confirms this persons notability, this one for example, all it mentions the subject from a large article is the say his salary, perhaps there is some content in these links that people who think the article is worthy of keeping can add to the article in this week. As the article stands it is an attack, it is made up of only the persons so called controversial resignation. Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The links provided by Nsk92 show nothing more than the Vice-Chancellor doing the job that all Vice-Chancellors do and which their public relations offices are paid to publicise. Nothing notable about this person has yet emerged in terms of previous activities or achievements. Possibly there may be something in his Who's Who entry, but I don't have access to that at present. Nomoskedasticity makes the valid point that the subject technically passes WP:Prof #6 as having been the highest executive officer of London Metropolitan University, a large institution, although one of low prestige: we are not talking about Oxford or Cambridge here. With WP:Prof #6 supporting keep and WP:BLP1E favouring delete the matter seems evenly balanced. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC).
 * For WP:N and WP:BIO one does not need to do anything notable to be considered notable; it is the existence of significant coverage that makes one notable. The fact that in this case significant coverage is not limited to the recent financial scandal shows that this is not a BLP1E case. And for what it is worth, at his post as the vice-chancellor he seems to have been more vocal and visible than is typical for academic administrators, often taking controversial positions. E.g. here is an article "Go private, London Met boss tells Oxbridge"  illustrating this point (here is another story about this, and another one called "One cheer for Brian Roper"). He is characterized as "combative", "gung-ho" His battles with the unions while a vice-chancellor of the London Met also received considerable coverage, e.g. here, here "Unions may face legal action over running of no-confidence poll in v-c", here, here,  etc. He was also discussed in protests against high pay for academic administrators. He also received substantial coverage (although less than later) at his previous post as the v.-c. of the North London University. E.g. here is a link to a book that has a couple of pages dealing with his battles with unions there.  A story from the late 90s related to a controversy about student tuition. A short story about his appointment as a v.-c. at London Met.  These are just examples and there is a lot more. The point is, there is plenty of nontrivial coverage of him predating the resignation scandal, which is sufficient for passing WP:BIO. To quote from WP:BIO: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability".  We certainly have such coverage here.  Nsk92 (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I will have a look through a few of these later, but the reality is that right now if additional detail from these links you have added here is not added to the article then it is imo still an attack page, my opinion is strengthened by the reality that no additional content is being added. Right now as it stands the article is a BLP violation, imo.Off2riorob (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps instead of wasting our time with pointless AfDs you could use the material that is clearly available and write some content. As I said above, you have clearly not complied with WP:BEFORE.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This AFD is far from pointless, thank you. As I have clearly said, imo he isn't notable enough for anyone to want to write a decent biography about and the article has been started for the single purpose of the recentism situation of his so called controversial resignation. Off2riorob (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment, this person is simply not very notable and there is never going to be any kind of decent biography of him, what about a redirect to the article that this is actually all about the funding crisis at the London Met article and where Roper is mentioned. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Having started this AfD, you will now have to live with its outcome, once it is closed in the normal way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not a problem to me at all, keep or delete or redirect it is correct then I am fine with any, but it is totally ok as the discussion develops to offer other solutions to the situation, and I have offered the possibility of a redirect, that is not a problem or out of process. It is not a battle with a winner and a loser, the end result should be the best thing for the subject of the biography and for the wikipedia.Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is properly sourced (and shows some minimal level of notability per WP:GNG rather than WP:PROF). Although the article in its current state seems to fit WP:BIO1E (justifying Off2riorob's redirect suggestion) the sources provided by Nsk92 indicate that the article can be expanded and not be solely about his part in the financial crisis. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep VC's are the head of their university and therefore presumed notable by WP:PROF,    DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On the british general level of notability of vice chancellors of universities, the citation I linked to from the gardian named Michael Driscoll (economist) at Middlesex .. Geoffrey Copland at Westminster ... John Tarrant at Huddersfield .. Sir Brian Follett, a fellow of the Royal Society and Vice-chancellor of Warwick .. Brian Roper at North London and £119,000 to Frank Gould at UEL. People in similar positions with a biography. Sir Brian Follett is much more notable for many reasons. Driscol is the only one comparable that has a biography and that bio if you could call it a bio, has taken six years to get to that level of content.Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is currently a bad article, but he meets the notability guidelines and WP:PROF. The fact that we do not have articles for other VCs is simply a reflection that this is an area where WP is inadequate. I have been surprised many times to find that a particular VC does not have an article and have written one as a result. VCs are notable as they have an important position that means they are certain to be noted. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  23:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has now been expanded, with a bunch of extra info and sources added. I think it is now in a better shape in terms of balance. Nsk92 (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a lot better. As nominator I would after the vast improvement, move to Keep and see if this could be snow closed. Off2riorob (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * After seeing the improvements I agree. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2010 (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.