Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Hewitt


 * 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. Sr13 03:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Carl Hewitt

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Largely self-authored and self-promoting to the point of gross exaggeration RandomHumanoid 02:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert have a comparable number of articles to Hewitt on Google Scholar.--171.66.49.141 18:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's absurd to even compare them...

Reasons to delete As far as I can tell, Carl Hewitt meets neither the criteria for WP:BIO nor Notability_(academics). That his article is largely self-authored is an embarrassment and this kind of self-promotion should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. I want to add that I have nothing against Carl personally. If he is indeed someday included here, someone else should write the biographical article. I suggest Carl read and respect WP:Autobiography. RandomHumanoid 02:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep He is notable for Planner and Actors. The article needs to be rewritten, though. Janm67 10:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable. Article can be cut of the self-prom parts. Tizio 12:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmnn, twinkle must not complete the AfD process properly.RandomHumanoid 15:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. The nonmination reason is inadquate, as it doesn't speak to notability.  I do question notability, but only weakly so.  (It seems to me that someone with that many publications must be notable, if only as a crank.)  I also question whether the article can be kept encyclopedic, due to the multiple sock puppets adding non-notable information.  I'm uncomfortable with the idea of deleting an article because the subject keeps making inappropriate edits &mdash; the policies seem to forbid that reasoning.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Most faculty, particularly in Computer Science have far more publications. That he has published is indicative of nothing.--RandomHumanoid 15:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's unfortunate that it is self-authored, but he is notable for Planner. I remember his work being discussed in my AI class and sure enough, it's in my survey textbook (Artificial Intelligence by Patrick Winston). Clarityfiend 16:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. subject is notable.  rewrite would be nice. Capmango 23:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep At least there's an attempt to establish notability and to source this claim.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 01:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and restart I suggest that if the consensus is to keep/rewrite the article, that Carl Hewitt be expressly forbidden from editing it, given his track record.  It's likely his contributions can be summed up in one, brief paragraph.  You'll notice he has a single, perfunctory reference in Russell and Norvig, the defacto standard for introductory AI texts.  (And I further point out that there are many people with more references there, who have been far, far more influential, and they no articles on wikipedia.)   User:RandomHumanoid(talk) 05:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep I seriously question the nominator's understanding of Wikipedia policy.  Carl Hewitt is notable, I have a book on his Actor programming model on my shelf.  The rest of the reasons listed are grasping at straws.  It is true that Hewitt is a jerk and his self-promotion on Wikipedia is an embarrassment, but that has nothing to do with his notability.  And it's just pathetic to hear that same old "but we don't have other articles that should be here" argument, how many times does it have to be said that what is or isn't included elsewhere in Wikipedia has no relevance to any deletion debate.  This is  the wrong way to deal with your irritation at the article's tone.  --Ideogram 11:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How about toning it down a notch? E.g., calling him a "jerk" certainly doesn't belong here. WP:Civility --User:RandomHumanoid(talk) 07:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes notability test. May need some rewrite, but that is not sufficient grounds for deletion. Gandalf61 12:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Hewitt is notable, as several of the references I've added to the article indicate. Not only is he known for Planner, but his Actor model was influential in concurrency theory (see Milner's Turing Award lecture), and in the development of the Scheme programming language (itself an important influence in CS). That said, I agree that the article is a mess of self-promotion, and in serious need of a rewrite. --Allan McInnes (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I would dispute the non-notable claim, as per arguments already made. I would agree, however, that it's in need of a serious rewrite (not only is it self-authored, which is a no-no, but the English is dodgy at times). Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 22:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Important pioneer of Artificial Intelligence. —David Eppstein 23:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. His name is mentioned in any complete history of artificial intelligence and he is therefore notable. —Ruud 20:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep – notable for his early work. The article needs to be cleaned up by removing non-notable achievements and inappropriate external links. See also Conflict of interest. --Lambiam Talk  22:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, pioneer in his field, notability is virtually uncontested. RFerreira 06:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Associate professor in CS at the top ranked CS department in America with many contributions. It may be a bit self-promoting, but it is backed up by reliable sources.  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2007 (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.