Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Lindgren


 * 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. I have discounted the opinion of Rootbeerjunky (as a WP:SPA as well as the unsigned "KEEP" comment. What remains is deep doubt that there is real notability buried beneath these Royal Orders of Whatever.  Sandstein   20:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Carl Lindgren

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

Clearly a fine person, but unconvinced about notability, especially with what appears to be somewhat vague sourcing. Black Kite 01:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Weird, like I wrote on the discussion page of that entry is that I will fix that as some of the links seem to be broken. He is on the list of the World Academy of Art and Science fellows and Google shows more then enough reliable sources. As said, I did not have the time yet to edit this. Being all new to Wikipedia I find it a bit weird to just mark it for deletion when cleanup etc. is still in progress?--Prinkipas (talk) 07:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  02:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as per nom. The same editor pushed Carl E. Lindgren to the list of notable members of Order of Saint Mauriceas (I found him on 28th page of the list (322 pages long) of recipients). The article came out in december 2006, the sources are still in the fog. Please clarify the notability. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment take the sentences I wrote as comment, not as a vote for deletion. But, please organize the references in a such a manner that there will be no such debate in the future. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am against the way this is going, it is in contradiction with the Wikipedia:Deletion policy as the article is tagged and currently being worked on to improve its quality. This is a valid alternative for deletion and the discussion page and history show that its work in progres. For the love of those that actually have a live besides surfing the net constantly, it would only be fair to allow proper editing. What is the use of the wiki concept otherwise?--Prinkipas (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC) — Prinkipas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Not at all my area, so correct me if I'm wrong, but Fellowship of the Royal Asiatic Society and World Academy of Art and Science seems sufficient to meet WP:PROF. The sourcing isn't great and I can't find a list of fellows of the RAS on their website, but the World Academy of Art and Science listing gives him as "Fellow, RSA, RAS, CollT, RSPH; member, RHS" and this is confirmed by the American Military University faculty bio. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF. Citation impact seems to be minimal, and primarily related to obscure patents (if these are not false positives). WorldCat returns a few books by C. E. Lindgren, including books on aura theories that would probably fall under WP:FRINGE. These may be false positives, but even if they are not they fall short of indicating notability. The most widely held book is in only 36 libraries worldwide. The memberships do not seem to be in societies that would qualify under WP:PROF criterion #3. For notability to be asserted under this criterion, the level of prestige of the societies must be comparable to, for example, the United States National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society.--Eric Yurken (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although its not my area I did some small fixes in the references and the person seems notable enough. The memberships and types of memberships are from real organizations. Perhaps the focus of the entry should be on what he did (does) in total instead of just focusing on the academic part. It does need some cleaning though.. --Rootbeerjunky (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC) — Rootbeerjunky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Weak Keep No one of the indications for notability present here is by itself sufficient. For example, agreed that the individual societies listed do not, any one, of them, by itself show notability. The overall pattern does. I agree with Rootbearjunky that he should not be considered as primarily or solely an academic. DGG (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP Guy Stair Sainty is royal genealogy and heraldry just like Carl Lindgren.
 * Comment. With all due respect, there are many orders, societies etc. that are nothing but a way of creating a vanity record. They have names that make them sound notable; I can come up with some fictitious examples: Philadelphia Society of Franklin Dragons (a little silly), Imperial Order of the Phoenix of Killimanjaro (reminds me of Harry Potter somehow), High Order of the Most Eminent Crown Prince of Konu (named after the fictitious former Prince of Konu, an ancient city that no longer exists) etc. etc. etc. Usually these orders or societies are maintained by private individuals or organizations, and are not endorsed by any legitimate government. Some even charge a fee to grant membership. You often find their description on a .com web site, like the one for The Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam, http://www.dragonofannam.com.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strange reasoning It is nice to see fictitious examples, but after Googling and Yahooing the net for 15 mins I learned a lot about these orders see: Orders. I do not see any [Self-Styled Chivalric Orders] on this person and the orders he has. On the contrary, the [Order of Saint Michael] is according to Wikipedia is the oldest Portuguese orders of knighthood. As for that Dragon order, I took some names that were on the memberslist and Googled them and they seem to be real people with real merits, degrees etc. So although its not really my thing (and from what I understand its not yours either) it seems notable enough just as DGG says. Thank God these orders are not endorsed by governments as some of them are religious orders. And since when is a government endorsement holy? Each state has different laws on the recognition of organizations and in the States we don't fancy orders. Maybe the credit crisis can bring change to that (just being sarcastic without the purpose to offend anyone :-p ) And since when is a .com website bad?--Rootbeerjunky (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The modus operandi of many of these so-called orders and societies is to include notable members, often without their consent, only removing them if explicitly asked. They simply communicate to notable individuals (e.g., Nobel laureates) that they were included as members (often by email). Most of these notable individuals never bother to get their names removed. These organizations (orders or societies) then start advertising that they have among their members this Nobel laureate, that former country president etc. New members who are not so notable are invited and asked for a membership fee, of course, to support the noble goals of the order or society. The enticement is based on a flawed syllogism like this: (a) Nobel laureate N is a member of order O; (b) Nobel laureate N is notable; then (c) all members of order O are notable. (Including the sucker that is being asked to pay a few bucks for the membership.) Of course I am not saying that all orders and societies are like this; but many are. The ones that are legitimate often are sponsored by very well known and high profile organizations, non-governmental or government-sponsored, and new members are admitted only after they go though a rigorous and very selective process.--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there are many spurious academic societies. The Royal Asiatic Society, Royal Historical Society and Society of Antiquaries of Scotland are not, as far as I'm aware, among them. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a mix of phony and legitimate orders\societies listed in the article. I think you are right about these societies Espresso Addict, but I could not find evidence that Prof. Lindgren is a fellow (or equivalent) in any of them. Whoever created the Carl Lindgren article included very unreliable sources for certain claims. Take for example the entry under references listed as: CJB. 23 November 2007. If you follow the link you get to this web site. This claim of notability is actually an anonymous posting by a user called CJB, who talks about Lindren. There is a link at the end of the posting. To what seems to be an article by Stanford’s World Association of International Studies, with some odd statements that make very little sense.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was assuming good faith. I've just checked the Royal Historical Society fellows listing, and he doesn't seem to be included; It's possible there's some legitimate explanation (eg recent retirement). I couldn't find a list of Royal Asiatic Society or Society of Antiquaries of Scotland fellows at the society websites. The World Academy of Art and Science is one I don't know, but appears legitimate; its fellows listing states his other fellowships as "Fellow, Royal Asiatic Society, Society of Antiquaries, College of Teachers, Royal Society of Health". Espresso Addict (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about good faith here. I did a search on Wikipedia articles for “Carl Edwin Lindgren” - a total of 25 articles. I could not go through all of them, but Lindgren’s name seems to have been included in most of them by Royalhistorian. This is a user who left a message in my talk page identifying himself as Prof. Lindgren.--Eric Yurken (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A related phenomenon, with a more commercial goal, is the proliferation of private and for-profit organizations with official-sounding names. This one I find rather deceitful. Take, for example, the American Public University System, which is actually a private and for-profit online learning education organization. In their name they are public, but the reality is that they are private and for-profit. The American Military University, where Prof. Lindgren appears to teach, redirects to this American Public University System.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read the wiki entry on those universities and the websites of both those universities. There is nothing deceitful there as its written in simple and plain English even I can understand, so what is your point? Private universities are commercial and deceitful?? Based on what facts please? --Rootbeerjunky (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What I object is to deceitful names; they are red flags, even if the organizations are legitimate and set up in good faith. Of course there is nothing wrong with private universities. In fact, many of the most prestigious universities in the US are private – e.g., Princeton and Harvard. As for the connection between these issues and the article being considered for deletion, the bottom line is that there are just too many of these red flags in the article. The same is true for other sources linked to the article. For example, on Lindgren’s web page it is stated that he is “the author of over 150 journal articles”. How can someone be the author of so many articles (I assume written in English), and a Google Search return no trace of them? What the Google Search revels are a few patents that are most likely false positives.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of publications.John Z (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John Z. The same site has a detailed CV, including a list of society fellow/memberships. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The patents you found, Eric, are from different person (Someone from Sweden), but the creator of the article Special:contributions/Deepcove123 (one entry only) and the User:Royalhistorian are the same person and from my user talk page and from yours, Eric, is the same parson, Carl Lindgren, we have debate here, I think I can conclude that from text I read and timestamps of certain edits. So, my opinion about self promotion, hm, I won't write about that. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Alas self-promotion is one thing and trying to get people who are limited in specific fields to understand what societies, academies, orders and achievements are important and which are fake usually takes a specialist to explain this. This was my intent. It was NOT my intent to self promote myself, rather I wrote to two members of this discussion in hopes that due to their lack of academic terminology, their knowledge of the scientific purpose of chivalric orders and how one is selected (the real ones) to prevent such individuals through misunderstanding of the fields being discussed to NOT come across as uneducated or un-informed in these areas. I know that they are well meaning and well educated scholars and editors. Various areas can be tricky and misleading. Also I have never used Deepcove123 but do use royalhistorian. Royalhistorian (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks MaNeMeBasat, I noticed that. Rootbeerjunky’s account seems to have been created on Dec 13, the day after the article was nominated for deletion, apparently with a clear goal. Prinkipas’s account was created to respond to DGG’s comment on the article’s talk page, also possibly as a WP:SPA. Never mind, if Carl Lindgren was verifiably notable I would recommend keep. Right now, unfortunately I cannot. I do not like to look like a bad guy, but Wikipedia is not a joke.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Amusing Its not really nice talking about someone in third person as if he wasnt there.... So because I joined Wikipedia and after trying to contribute I am now being accused of what? Damn, you guys know how to run this show really good. If you dont want new editors on Wikipedia just put a notice up. People wont bother anymore you know.--Rootbeerjunky (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * μαλακιες Seems there is mud fight going on and most of these people already know each other. How amusing.--Prinkipas (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Comment'. WP is not a place for |en|%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE%B1%CE%BA%CE%B9%CE%B5%CF%82 this kind of words(μαλακιες), I think. And your conclusion about knowing each other is wrong. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. What I'm seeing is a lot of puffed-up titles with little backing or significance, employment at something one step up from a diploma mill, and no sign of real academic notability (or for that matter real-world notability as measured by major media attention). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I Do not want my name on Wikipedia

I am sorry that the above thread has turned into name calling. It saddens me that when one has nothing else to say they throw libel stones about a university. When an editor of an 'encyclopaedia' does NOT know the difference between an accredited university and a degree mill, I just do not want my name associated with his editing. REMOVE my name. I also wish to thank the one's who proposed me. You should not have. I mean it, "You should not have (smile).

From a historical viewpoint, here is how it stacks up. One thousand years from now when Asia is ruler of the world which will be more important to world affairs!!! ?

1. The name of the first and ONLY Occidental in history to be chancellor of an Imperial Order of a Oriental country or

2. The basketball player who made 10 baskets while on dope he stole from his grandmother and fed to his grandson while carrying a weapon which he confessed to his pedophyle priest (smile).

Dr. Eppstein, I believe, you are at best misinformed and at worst libel about American Military University. Just because your remarks are on the Internet, does not mean that you can over-step your bounds. I am certain students from AMU (all 32,000) would like to express their opinions to the AMU and to your school's administration about AMU being a degree mill, I know I will.

1. "American Military University (AMU) has been admitted into the National Association of Institutions for Military Education Services (NAIMES), an organization that advocates for the military student, partners with the military education community and promotes “best practices” for conducting military education programs. AMU is a member institution of American Public University System (APUS), an online university system that serves more than 30,000 adult learners in 50 states and more than 100 countries."

2. "American Military University is a member institution of American Public University System, which includes American Public University. AMU’s relevant curriculum, affordability and flexibility help working adults pursue degrees that will help them advance in a variety of career fields, including business, information technology, education and management. AMU also provides specialized education in homeland security, national security and emergency and disaster management. A university book grant provides textbooks at no cost for eligible undergraduate students. American Public University System is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Public Education, Inc. (NASDAQ:APEI)."

3. American Military University is accredited by DETC - "The Distance Education and Training Council is a non-profit [501 c 6] educational association located in Washington, D.C.

"The Council was founded in 1926 to promote sound educational standards and ethical business practices within the correspondence field. The independent nine-member Accrediting Commission of the DETC was established in 1955; shortly thereafter it gained the approval of the U.S. Department of Education as the "nationally recognized accrediting agency" under terms of Public Law. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) also recognizes the Accrediting Commission."

4. AMU most importantly has regional accreditation by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) of the North Central Association. I believe your school has the same type of regional accreditation. Is your school, UC Irvine, in Orange County, California, a degree mill???? Of course not. AMU has all of the qualifications of Harvard, U. California or any other r.c. university.

5. Also please note that 50 percent of the students are FBI, CIA, MI (not missing in action - smile) and high ranking military. I wonder if your California school could have said this in 8 years of their first years of operation.

This is a little history lesson for a computer prof. -

David, did you know that in the very beginning, no one in America had a doctorate " least of all Harvard's president Increase Mather, who, as a Dissenter was ineligible for a Doctorate from ANY English university as all were controlled by the Church. Still Harvard was eager to get into the Doctorate business, so their entire faculty (that is to say, Mr. Leverett and Mr. Brattie) got together and unanimously agreed to award an honorary Doctorate to Mr. Mather, whereupon Mather was able to confer Doctorates unto his faculty, who subsequently were able to doctor their students."

Oh, the first school of DISTANCE EDUCATION was Yale!! It seems that a Mr. Daniel Turner from England wanted into the Royal Society of Physicians and Surgeons. Alas he was not a Church of England nor did he have an M.D. He merely had the lower Bachelors of Medicine (given to most English doctors - the M.D. in England, even today, is a higher advanced medical degree). He thought and thought. He then gathered 50 medical books together and sent them off to Yale who appreciated it so much, they made him an M.D. in absenia (no he never visited America). Yes, he did continue to practice medicine as an M.D. and did get into the two ROYAL SOCIETIES. I hope you on second thought retract your remarks about American Military University.

I wish everyone the best and no hard feelings.

Dr. Carl Edwin Lindgren Royalhistorian (talk) 10:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Even in relatively marginal cases like this, I think our decisions are clearer if we do not take account of the views of the subject. A challenge is often viewed as an insult--as it is here--and an understandable response is to be prefer that there be no article at all rather than people question one's importance. Understandable, but destructive of NPOV. We don't include article on the basis of the intrinsic merit of the subject, but their suitability for the purposes of an encyclopedia. (In fairness, I mention that I've had a considerable friendly off-line discussion with CEL about this and some related articles).DGG (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not concerned about the remarks of anyone who posted on this thread. In fact, I found most of them beneficial and even tried to address some of the issues directly with the authors. I am what I am. I have achieved far more than some people on Wikipedia and far far less than others. An Internet encyclopaedia entry is based on the total overall accumulation of achievements, honours, knighthoods, publications, academic training and teaching and when possible a specific aspect that makes that one individual different or unique from all other people. It is not how much glitter or fame vanity they have. If it is, then Wikipedia is merely a vanity press rag. Wikipedia should be far more. However, I do take severe issue with Prof. David Eppstein, who seems to be a fine individual, as his remarks were not constructive, mean spirited and incorrect as they pertained to a regionally accredited university whose students, faculty and administration could be harmed from an economic and academic viewpoint. Please try to be honest in our evaluation.

Royalhistorian (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a grossly out-of-proportion reaction to my remark. But I stand by what I said: while I'm sure your institution provides a valuable service for our overseas servicepeople, one simply cannot compare a for-profit distance learning center to a top-tier research university, or even to a second-tier one such as mine. A full professor position at Harvard, say, conveys a presumption of notability even before we look at the specific achievements of the professor. A position at AMU does not. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this something comon with professors and doctors on Wikipedoa, I checked your page on Wikipedia and your article was nominated for deletion several times and people are still not sure about it from what I read. It even appears you edited your own entry? Just observing... Anyway, so Harvard is more prestigious then the AMU. I don't think many would disagree, but calling it a "one step up from a diploma mill" is pretty arrogant as the institute is accredited and several US goverment websites seem to apreciate their standard. Can I conclude that you don't care much about accreditation then? Interesting debate, are private universities worse or not? Is long distance learning less of quality then normal learning? In my opinion a student that manages to serve his country in active duty and that manages to finish a college degree at a accredited institute deserves a big applause. Please raise your hands here how many of you did this? It is a dream of many even non Americans. So now a professor wants to teach at that particular university and he gets mocked online for being innovative..... Perhaps in 10 years from now this will be the standard...online education. The only thing notable in all of this debate is the innuendo and mud throwing. Perhaps a PhD on human relations or councelling can join in to fix this mess. --Prinkipas (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly does not pass WP:PROF.  As for WP:BIO, I think it fails there as well: google news search (here) turns up some hits for "Carl Lindgren" with the word university added, but most results do not appear to relate to the one discussed here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

--reply to Nomoskedasticity--

If that is the case, then David Eppstein wikipedia pages also fails there as well: google news search turns up ONLY 7 hits with the word university

Also, Guy Stair Sainty is a royal genealogy and heraldry in the similar class as a author like Carl Lindgren and his wikipedia pages also fails there as well: google news search turns up ONLY 32 hits.

Should both of these articles be considered for deletion as well for WP:PROF and WP:BIO?


 * "What about this other article that I'm not convinced should be here either" is such a classic example of an argument to avoid in deletion discussions that we have a whole separate essay devoted to that single topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

--reply to David Eppstein--

There is no agruement. I am not one of your students, ok for you to dictate who I can talk to and accuse me of arguing with "Nomoskedasticity".

I read his statement above and I made a reply to his statement. I did not come here to argue but only to state some facts and asked him for his opinion based on his prior statement.

I did not use "CAPTIAL" letters to infer I was yelling at him either.


 * Argument in this context means a chain of reasoning. It has little to do with the colloquial meaning of the word involving a heated disagreement. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete that his nomination to his order that may make him notable was supposedly made by an Emperor who died 60 years before this guy was born makes the likelihood of it happening low and of being a hoax greater. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you've misread. If you mean  Dong Khanh, he founded  Order of the Dragon of Annam back in 1886.  There is no claim it was he who inducted Lindgren into it. if you mean Bao Long, he was ruler from 1997 to 2007.


 * 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.