Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerome Katz


 * 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   keep. The strongest consensus was disapproval of the manner in which the original author wrote this article after being commissione to do so in exchange for payment. Despite that disapproval, there is consensus that the subject is notable, and the article sufficiently neutral that deletion is inappropriate. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  17:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Jerome Katz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was written for pay by User:FergusM1970 per. The question is where does the community stand on the paid undisclosed paid writing of articles? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's notable, NPOV and not in a prohibited category of paid editing.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and I haven't actually been paid yet. Go have another rummage on Elance, Doc, and I think you'll find that this is not yet a paid article.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes but you are hoping to be paid Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not... exactly. But I assume you've confirmed that I haven't been.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not really seeing any notability here. Even if Fergus didn't create it, I still don't see any reason why it should be kept on the site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Check the notability criteria for academics. Look at number 5. Katz is notable.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The claim that he has the Coleman Chair is sourced to LinkedIn, which is not a reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That shouldn't be a problem. SLU's site is down at the moment, but I should be able to find an RS in a couple of minutes.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * SLU site still down, but I can do his CV for now. It's hosted on the SLU business school site. Any good?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * CV added. I have the link to the SLU faculty site, which I will add as soon as the site's working again. If I'm not around to do so I'm sure someone else can verify and add it. For reference here it is: http://www.slu.edu/x19132.xml --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And added.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep&mdash;Per google scholar: h-index is ~28, 10 publications with >100 cites.  That's a pretty clear evidence for WP:NACADEMIC #1:  The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And a good cite:
 * Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The person is notable, any problems caused by paid editing can be fixed with edits. link1link2link3link4 He holds a named professorship at a major university. AlbinoFerret  03:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Academic is notable as having a named chair. The fact that the article was or will be paid for is a basis for banning the editor, not for deleting the article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Which simply means that all paid articles will be written by sock puppets. Sock puppet writes the article. Gets blocked if discovered. But article gets kept and they get paid. Than they use a new sock for the next job. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. If I'd written all my paid articles like this, properly sourced and disclosed, I wouldn't be getting banned, would I?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes you might still. The community is against undisclosed paid editing. Disclosed paid editing is sort of a grey area. Many support only commenting on talk pages. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, that's why I said "If I'd disclosed it." As I understand COI, though, articles that aren't promotional, attack pieces etc are fairly non-controversial if they're disclosed.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and rewrite. He's notable enough for an article, but somebody else should write it. Yes, I could revise this article to make it NPOV, and I have done so for similar articles hundreds of times. I am not sure whether the approach I have previously taken is right, or whether we should go back to the simply statement: if you are notable, someone uninvolved will write the article.  DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Content problems with tone are an editorial matter, not a notability matter, as you are aware... Carrite (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. A spammy article drawn from sources that are demonstrably not independent (mainly recycled press releases). Whether or not a good article could be written is largely irrelevant, because this is not a good article, it's an article that fails to meet our policies on neutrality and sourcing of biographies. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete His CV and linked in profile are not reliable sources. We are not here to host peoples cvs Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that having unreliable sources as well as a reliable one is really grounds for deletion.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't agree with the paid editing one bit, but he does have a named chair and WP:NACADEMICS is specific in saying that that is enough for notability. DiscantX (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes PROF as holder of a named professorship at a major university. Trout to for what appears to be a retaliatory nomination against the creation of a recently-banned paid editor. Carrite (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No sign of notability, even at close range. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can understand an argument that says the page ought to be deleted due to its promotional nature or because it was authored by a banned editor. I'm not following your argument that subject notability is absent, though.  Are you saying that the subject does not occupy a named chair and did not write the papers attributed to him?  If those facts are correct, then I think notability is, well, obvious.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Promotional nature and the paid editing is secondary here. Are you trying to tell me that if my position is 'named' and I have published a few papers, I automatically become eligible for a Wikipedia article? Woohoo, let me go publish a few more papers then. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:NACADEMIC. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No matter how awesome he is, if his 'named chair' is being backed up by a LinkedIn post, it fails WP:V. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made a pass through the article and chopped out the dubious cites including linkedin and the CV. The cite to the university should be more than sufficient for his named chair.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete No sign of multiple, third party, discussions of this person in reliable sources. This lack of independent coverage trumps the academic notability criteria.  Mr Stephen (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are citing standards for the General Notability Guideline, but this case is an instance of passing a Special Notability Guide set up for Academics. Think of it as a low bar set up for those who are deemed encyclopedia-worthy as a general category but for whom mass media or book sourcing is normally difficult to muster. Carrite (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Even the easy to pass WP:ACADEMIC accepts that: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." The broad-brush idea is that if everyone else thinks a subject isn't worth writing about then it probably isn't.  Mr Stephen (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PROF is actually a high bar, rather than a low one. Google scholar lists over 5000 reliably published papers that cite his work, and presumably some small but nonzero fraction of them go into nontrivial detail about it, so WP:GNG is easy to meet. WP:PROF says that's not enough, and we have to have either significant impact of the work, or other indicators of notability such as named chairs (which are far from easy to attain). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:NACADEMIC. The article being created by a paid editor is not a sufficient policy reason for deletion.  Konveyor   Belt   22:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, but... the article's subject barely meets WP:NACADEMICS. Perhaps it's time to re-examine the guideline.  Mini  apolis  23:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Contrary to some above, we blow-up problem articles, and there is nothing wrong with that in the least. Here, my judgement is the article has been sufficiently 'leveled' (to extend the blow-up metaphor) and NACADEMICS, as weak as it is, is satisfied. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I see only 4 sources, only 1 might be considered independent and marginally reliable. The Coleman foundation site is not independent and in any case gives only one line to Katz, The StlCurator makes a point that its vision is to promote a positive image of St. Louis, the St Louis U blurb is very short and of course not independent, the marginally reliable source in this case is the St. Louis-Post Dispatch (normally a very reliable source) - but this short article is about a fairly small routine event and just mentions Katz in passing as one of the presenters. If the best a paid editor can do is come up with these short blurbs, there may not be anything behind the curtain.  Delete and if somebody can come up with some real sources it can be recreated. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "not independent"? All of those sources are independent of the subject, Mr. Katz. Nor have you accounted for NACADEMIC #1Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 3 of the sources are absolutely NOT independent.
 * The St. Louis U site with the blurb represents the view of his employer - and they have an interest in making him appear to be a great teacher/scholar. In my experience these blurbs are usually written by the prof himself, or by the department head.
 * The site of Coleman Foundation, which pays for his chair, is also not independent. They might be expected to  give him undeserved praise in order to puff up the effectiveness of their activities.  The fact that they didn't puff him up - only giving him one line - of course does not establish the independence of the prof and the foundation.
 * The STLCurator was founded by St. Louis promoters - "We are a group of creative professionals who got tired of the negative press of our beloved city, and decided to do something productive with our frustration." (top of the page at Vision. It wonderful that they want to promote their hometown - but it means that they are not a reliable source, nor are they independent.
 * The St. Louis Post Dispatch definitely is a reliable source, but the only thing it reports on in this short article is that Katz was a speaker at a fairly small routine meeting open to the public.


 * As far as holding a named chair: quoting WP:Academic
 * "5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
 * "Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs at other institutions are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability."
 * "Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs at other institutions are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability."


 * This leaves a lot up to our discretion. I'm not that familiar with St. Louis U, but generally I respect Jesuit institutions and consider them to be almost up to the level of similarly sized state institutions.  Maybe a good comparison in this case would be to University of Missouri - St. Louis or Southern Illinois University Edwardsville.  It definitely ain't Washington University at St. Louis though.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well. It is bizarre to call the University not independent of Mr. Katz but at least understandable in the Wiki way (although the University of St. Louis is still RS, regardless).  The other organizations are independent of him - not being him, they have taken notice of him - you may not think they should notice him but so what. And then there is the scholarship score. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of academic-related deletion discussions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability is clear, cut and dry, obvious, and settled, with passes of both WP:PROF and WP:PROF. I can only imagine that all of the WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE comments above are either completely unfamiliar with WP:PROF and with academic deletion cases, or are letting their opinions be biased by the paid editing issue rather than viewing notability objectively as a separate issue. As for the paid editing: it's a legitimate reason for calling an AfD in spite of clear notability, and if the paid-editing version were still the version we were debating I'd agree that WP:TNT is appropriate. But I think subsequent edits have removed that issue to the point where we can debate the article on the basis of notability alone. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I am completely opposed to undisclosed paid editing, especially by tendentious, argumentative POV pushers, and am pleased with the ban of this one. That being said, I agree with what wrote immediately above. I encourage  to continue the conversation elsewhere, while disagreeing on this specific point. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  02:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes agree this is a much wider discussion than this single article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep looks like the guy passes WP:NACADEMIC. Since the main contributor to the article has a conflict of interests check the article for possible bias. Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:39, 25 December 2014 (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.