Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herbert B. Mayo


 * 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'm in the uncomfortable position of having to delete an article in the face of a substantial "keep" majority. But Whoosit is exactly right: this man may very well be notable, but as long as even the essentials of his biography are not verifiable (and they don't seem to be; the stub article is "sourced" only to an Amazon search results page) this WP:BLP must go. It may be restored as soon as a decently reliable biography of Mr. Mayo is found.  Sandstein  22:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Herbert B. Mayo

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Previously deleted at Herbert Buddy Mayo as nonsense/attack. This version is better, but it still is dubious. G4 hangon'd, but after talking to an admin on MSN I (begrudgingly) agreed it was not G4. Author explained "The persons editing this page believe that Dr. Mayo belongs on the TCNJ Wikipedia page, under sub-heading "Notable Faculty", for he has had much to give back to the college, not including donating a generous amount to the school's Music Department to help renovate a concert hall" which I think is tenuous. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There seems to be no reliable biographical info available online. Notability cannot be established. --Whoosit (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, speedy close, newbie-biting. Earlier today the article creator wrote a joke article about this professor, which was speedied. He returned to attempt to write a legit article, but has apparently been driven off by drive-by taggers who barraged the article with deletion nominations only minutes after he began writing it. "Herbert B. Mayo" gets over 500,000 GHits, which is the same order of magnitude as those for "Theodore R. Sizer," a very notable academic whose name I picked out because his obituary ran nationally today. I really, really doubt Mayo is anywhere near as notable as Sizer, judging mainly by the NY Times piece I read, but the Google hits instead reflect the ubiquity of the textbooks he was written -- and writing frequently used textbooks is one way of satisfying criteria 4 of WP:PROF. So how about backing off and showing more civility towards (and help from those knowledgeable on the subject, which doesn't include me) a new editor who screwed up and is trying to make amends. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see this as newbie biting. The article needs dire cleanup, but I don't know where to start. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't follow, Hullaballoo... Where did you get 500,000 GHits? I only got 149,000, only related to his books, with zero bio info.  GNews only gives 8 hits.  None related to the subject. I see no verifiable bio info online. That makes it quite hard to write BLP. If you can show me where to find the sources, I will reassess my !vote. --Whoosit (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, 25 Google Books hits, but I strongly oppose speedy close and object to the bad faith being shown by Hullaballoo. However, this article needs a lot of work, and better sourcing for a BLP.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain your accusation of bad faith. I've posted similar comments in other debates, and in particular in the WP:Requests_for_comment/new_users discussions. Your claim that my comments were not made in good faith is inexplicable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close and newbie-biting are bad faith personal attacks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's simply not so. Commenting that particular conduct violates WP:BITE, which is a guideline, is plainly not a personal attack: "discussion of a user's conduct is not in itself a personal attack." "Speedy close" is simply a comment on the merits of the AFD discussion. However, groundlessly accusing another editor of "bad faith" is a personal attack, and you should retract that statement, since you still have provided any plausible basis for alleging that my comments were not made in good faith. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep If it can be shown that his textbooks are widely used and influential, he would be notable. For the record of the US academic library holdings, see WorldCat. The holdings aren't great, but they do indicate use beyond a single institution.I see from that page that Investments: an introduction has been translated into Chinese and Polish, and Basic finance into Chinese--details at . This would seem to indicate widespread use--routine textbooks are not usually translated.    DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. With an h-index of 4 and a top WorldCat holding of 148, I do not think he meets WP:PROF criterion #1. However, based on a search for syllabi listing his books, I think he meets WP:PROF criterion #4 (significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions).--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eric Yurken, meeting WP:PROF criterion 4. I comment, regarding HW, that requesting a speedy close accuses the nominator of either deliberately disruptive behavior or clear ignorance of deletion policy. Since only a loon could believe the latter, bad faith is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw. However, in accordance with WP:AGF, I choose to believe that HW did not understand the usual rules under which a speedy close might be granted. Ray  Talk 00:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Frustrated response. Not to be pedantic, but your comments reflect the guideline for speedy keep, not speedy close. There's an important difference, and it's even recognized to some extent in the text of WP:Speedy keep, which refers to the "early close" of an AFD and some of reasons why a discussion may be "speedily closed." Here are several examples of other editors using the same phrases in situations where it can't possibly mean "speedy keep," including one less than three weeks old.      . The exact phrase has been used nearly 3000 times in discussions, mostly in circumstances where it's pretty clearly not equivalent to "speedy keep." I don't want to seem confrntational for all the argument I'm doing, but if I meant to call for a speedy keep per the applicable guideline, I would have said "speedy keep." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I think you've defended yourself admirably. Thanks for staying calm and explaining. Ray  Talk 04:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry to be the doofus here, and please don't take this in the wrong way, but I could not find biographical references for this man. There's this but that's all. Yes, his name is on a lot textbooks. But there is nothing written about the man himself. Can you guys explain to me how some author credits on Amazon.com and an email address on a college website pass muster for reliably-sourced material? There's simply not enough info available to properly source even this three line stub bio. --Whoosit (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2009 (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.