Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Smith (professor)


 * 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   speedy delete. Copyvio in part and otherwise a close paraphrase of his web site http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/dasmith/bio.htm. I think he is notable as WP:Author and WP:PROF, so I started rewriting it to eliminate the puffery and paraphrase, but found it too contaminated by both that and promotionalism; it will need starting over. In general, bios like this on the web are often prepared not by the faculty member but by university PR, and they are also often to blame for adding them here. A notable person deserves better  DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Smith (professor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article was most likely self-created, and offers little to no benefit to the Wiki community. The person "Daniel Smith" is not a 'notable' enough figure worth having a Wiki page for. It should also be noted that it violates many of the rules citedhere. In all, this page contributes little to nothing to the Wiki community. Flordiagatorpolisci (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On the fence - First, am not sure why, but this profile of Prof. Smith is hosted on the site of Illinois Senator Dick Durbin. Doesn't give a reason or a context and I can't see where it was originally linked from.
 * Questions about whether or not he is notable enough to meet WP:GNG remain but he is regularly cited as an "expert" commentator on election matters, especially in Florida. The articles, though, are not comprehensive coverage of him, rather by him or with him making additional comments. See here from the New York Times, here from The Ledger, here from The Guardian (UK), |head here from The News-Press, here from The Nation, here from the Wall Street Journal and here from the San Francisco Chronicle. Most of those are very recent and relate to the 2012 Presidential Election. Ironically, on Florida-specific political issues, he could likely be cited as a reliable academic source whose comments on given issues would likely constitute significant coverage. But that doesn't necessarily make him notable as no-one has subsequently given him coverage in turn.
 * He runs the website electionsmith.com which seems to be how the various news sources come to seek him out for comment. While he clearly exists, that doesn't mean he meets WP:GNG and while he is regularly cited in newspapers, every single one of those articles is actually about other people, with some comments from him for some added "academic" substance.
 * Am massively on the fence with this one. Flordiagatorpolisci, you've given us something to think about! Stalwart 111  (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy to help! I'm amazed at how quickly and throughly you reacted and gathered information. The part about this article that most made me flag it for deletion was the appearance of it being self serving; it is my understanding that Wikipedia is not 'Linkedin.' It is highly likely that he created the page, though that cannot be known for sure. Looking back at past edits, it appears that the page has been vandalized; currently, under "alternate names," he is listed as "THE DAWG." I highly doubt that this is an actual alias. In all, the page seems to have been self-created, then neglected. Although new to the Wiki community, I feel that it gives nothing to Wikipedia, and that the likely self-spawned nature of creation is against the spirit of what Wikipedia is all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flordiagatorpolisci (talk • contribs) 15:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it certainly needs work but it might be that he does (just) meet the criteria for WP:GNG. I'd be interested to see what others think and to see if a consensus builds in either direction. I understand your original nomination but it might be that this one is a case of WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM instead. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC).


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - full professor at FSU, Fulbright scholar, and work outside of academia. Needs formatting badly. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2012 (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.