Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damon A Williams


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 12:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Damon A Williams

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a biographical article of a person who most likely does not meet WP:BIO. It has carried an unchallenged {notability} tag for nearly two years, and reads like a CV. A Google search for Mr. Williams yields zero secondary sources to support notability. In addition, the article has been edited primarily by user:Ksdunn0524 and user:Jihad061, both of which are SPA for adding information about Mr. Williams to the mainspace. Someone more familiar with WP:SOC than I should probably do some further investigation. Drasil (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  16:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  16:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Unremarkable university administrator, fails WP:BIO. WP:PROF does not apply, as administrators are not academic researchers in the sense of the guideline. Ray  Talk 18:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment/Weak Keep: I agree with the above analysis on WP:SPA, but he is mentioned prominently in this Chronicle article on a University of Wisconsin protest, so perhaps there's more notable information out there. --Pusillanimous (talk&bull;contribs) 02:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ouch. I went and read that article, and if an article were written purely using that for a source, I'd argue for deletion as a borderline attack page. It is, to say the least, not complimentary to the subject, and describes the subject strictly in a negative light in the context of one event. I still think we're better off deleting this one. Ray  Talk 14:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I now have a higher respect for Mr. Williams after having read that article, but I'm still with Ray  on this. Having blame transparently pinned on you by a commentator with an agenda is unfortunately the lot of the administrative life and insufficiently remarkable to support notability.--Drasil (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  15:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. He seems to be below threshold for all categories of WP:PROF (his administrative position is high level but not high enough) and the source found by Pusillanimous is too editorial to be usable in a BLP. However contra Ray, WP:PROF certainly would apply if e.g. his publications had sufficiently high citation counts to demonstrate impact (they don't). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- agreed on all counts of David Eppstein's analysis. Provost of U Wisc. would be sufficient for me, but not Vice-Provost; the references are real but not enough for GNG. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2013 (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.