Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik J. Dale


 * 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Erik J. Dale

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability not clear at all, no specific sources to verify facts presented in article. Citations point only to generic sites, not specifically to those referring to Dale, except for his own (very peculiar and very outdated) blog. The article appears to have been written by a member of the subject's family. Only one relevant Google hit for "Erik J. Dale" outside of WP itself. Appears to violate WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Contested prod. Realkyhick 15:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Sethacus 15:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N, and WP:COI. --Nenyedi Talk Deeds@ 16:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. Fails to meet WP:BIO. --Evb-wiki 17:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * comment there are some complications--a Research Professor at Stanford would normally be expected to be notable--this is a rank equivalent to Professor but without teaching duties. But see his blog he seems to have some remarkably unusual theories. I cannot find him at Stanford, at Oslo, or in Web of Science. DGG (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   —David Eppstein 03:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Searching Google scholar for "author:e-dale quantum" or for "author:e-dale geophysics" or for "author:erik-dale" or for "author:erik-j-dale" turned up absolutely nothing that matches. Hoax? As for the research prof at Stanford thing, I also can't find any record of that, but even if he were, I think that title means an untenured soft money position, not really equivalent to full professor. See e.g. the Stanford Faculty Handbook, page 26 of the pdf. —David Eppstein 03:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * for future reference: soft money, yes, and therefore non-tenure, but Stanford like other US research universities makes a distinction between Research Assistant Prof, R. Associate Prof, and Research P. that parallels the distinctions in the regular lines. To what extent the standards are comparable is an interesting question, but normally (& at Stanford) Associate & Full are renewable for life if the money holds out (at Stanford for 6 yr terms). I doubt the Stanford depts. & administration let the values discredit the university. Of course, we don't know just what rank this guy had, if he ever actually had any, which I doubt. DGG (talk) 00:37, 17 August 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.