Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph R. Carvalko


 * 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Joseph R. Carvalko

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is yet another person who paid somebody to write a Wikipedia article for him. As usual, what the person got for his couple of hundred dollars was a schlock job based on a smattering of minor, primary sources that do nothing to establish notability. What we need are significant, secondary sources. You won’t find them here. The most significant thing about Carvalko is that he was once involved in a lawsuit involving Korean War vets. This is a case of WP:BLP1E. He’s a part-time adjunct professor who teaches a single course called “Law, Science and Technology,” so he fails WP:PROF. (In the original version of the article, the paid hack tried to make Carvalko sound like a tenured professor who taught in three different disciplines: Law, Science, and Technology.  But as this link  shows, it is in fact just a single course that’s called “Law, Science, and Technology."  This is just one example of the dishonesty of these paid hacks.)  Carvalko also claims to be an author, but he paid to have his books published through notorious vanity press AuthorHouse   .  The books are utterly non-notable, failing WP:BK, and he fails WP:AUTHOR. He has published a few academic papers, but there’s no evidence that they’re cited anywhere or have made any kind of academic splash. Again, only primary sources are given, not the necessary secondary sources. Finally, he holds some patents, but once again the sources are primary, not secondary, and there is no indication whatsoever that the patents are notable. In sum, this is the case of a non-notable person who paid a “Wikipedia content provider” for an article that utterly fails to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Mr. Carvalko was ripped off, but it’s very difficult to feel sorry for him. Qworty (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BASIC, WP:PROF, and WP:CREATIVE. General lack of independent reliable sources with in-depth coverage to establish notability. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I wouldn't call it a schlock job, whatever that means. It was written by a competent editor who didn't have much to work with. The subject is notable neither as an academic, nor as an attorney, nor as a poet. StAnselm (talk) 09:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing here to establish notability. One high profile case is not enough, and potentially notable work does not mean that the creator is notable.  Gigs (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The sources are mostly either primary sources or not independent of the subject. The remaining ones do not show notability except for a single event, the case involving Roger Dumas. I have found a lot of sourcing for Roger, tons going way back. Roger's brother has been very active, bringing cases against the US Govt and even wrote and directed a movie about it starring Ed Asner. So I would recommend an article on Roger Dumas (POW) be created, and in that article can be discussed Joseph R. Carvalko in terms of his involvement. That's the only way I see Carvalko in Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's too much here for an A7 speedy deletion, but nothing in the article rises to any real significance, and there isn't any evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom and Logical Cowboy ukexpat (talk) 12:38, 30 October 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.