Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Stetson


 * 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. I'm sorry about the stress this article has caused the subject's family but sources have been presented that demonstrates that he meets WP:GNG. The questionable content has been removed and I would urge those participating here to keep an eye on this article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Lee Stetson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I am nominating this in my capacity as an OTRS volunteer on behalf of the subject and his involved family. (see Ticket#: 2012012510015743). This is their reasoning: -- 1) This page was not created with his knowledge or permission. I'm trying to find out how the entry may be edited to omit the statement of "under mysterious circumstances, and without any of the normal fanfare and celebrations that would accompany the departure of a top University administrator." That statement is purely speculative and during the time when my father announced retirement, the University student body and administration were extremely supportive. The false notion that it was "mysterious" was eventually dredged up by the school newspaper, the Daily Pennsylvanian. I believe they are continuing to perpetuate this inaccuracy by not only creating the referenced Wikipedia page but also providing a citation, as if to prove authenticity, when in reality it is misleading.

2) It's somewhat of a cyclical nature as the *only* printed source that even mentioned his departure outside of the University's official retirement letter is the Daily Pennsylvanian articles. I also find it disturbing because I can only presume that the individual(s) who created my father's wikipedia page, which was done without his knowledge, is/are affiliated with the student paper. Much debate was created on campus at the time by those who felt it was unfair that my father was even targeted by speculation through the paper but of course, there is no printed source other than what is found in the comment sections of the two articles...hopefully this can be resolved through this discussion. My father and I just want a fair and neutral entry on wikipedia regarding his character and if that can't be mitigated, we don't want such an entry to exist at all.

3) After discussion this with my father...he would feel more comfortable if you would nominate this articlefor deletion on his behalf.

Thank you again.

-Lindsey Stetson --- Ocaasit &#124; c 22:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Ocaasit &#124; c 22:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have found a few sources, looks like a little work is all that is needed to flesh this out. For example:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/education/19counselor.html?pagewanted=all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmanoconnor (talk • contribs) 02:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep He seems notable, and providing a more balanced treatment is better than deleting. I edited the article with more info on the consultancy and reduced the focus in the article on his sudden departure.  Despite what Lindsey Stetson says, Lee Stetson's departure was covered in similar terms (left "abruptly", school "tight-lipped") in the Philadelphia Inquirer which as the USA's third-oldest newspaper is a rather more reputable source than a student paper, and in the Chronicle of Higher Education, which called it a "puzzling exit".  The CHE article (which unfortunately isn't freely available online) offers additional evidence attesting to his importance in university admissions beyond U of Pennsylvania, some of which I put in the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. He doesn't fit WP:PROF very well, but after the recent changes to the article it seems clearer that he passes WP:GNG and is known for more than just his departure. However, per WP:BLP, I think we need to keep the innuendo about how mysterious his departure was to a minimum, and stick to just the facts of the event. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. My view is admissions officers at universities would not meet WP:Prof or general notability except in special circumstances. It seems highly likely to me that the main purpose that would be served by our retention of this article would not be as part of series of articles on admissions officers but rather a venue for aiding, reporting or introducing speculation on this persons problems. Such problems and the surrounding issues I think would require more coverage in reliable sources before justifying an article such as this one. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC))
 * My opinion is that powerful people are notable, and they ought to be kept, regardless of their current desires for privacy, especially after years of seeking out major news coverage. The subject here voluntarily spoke to the New York Times, my hallmark for notability, and he can't take back his words and cry, "I want to be alone."  Please note, however, that the consensus in the past has been to delete marginally notable persons. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Public figure, no available option to delete on request even if marginally notable. But Berian is wrong: we do not usually delete marginally notable people on  the subjects request, which is what I suppose he means.--we never delete them if public figures; if private, we do not have a consensus to delete--only if opinion is divided can it optionally be closed as delete, and there is no firm consensus about when to use that option (except in cases clearly involving DO NO HARM). I think the recent trend of consensus is to interpret "private" rather narrowly. Myself, I would eliminate the option to close BLP AfDs as delete at the request of the subject in all cases. We should delete if require by Do No Harm whether or not the subject requests it, and treat their opinion otherwise  only as any other contributor to the discussion. Otherwise they ask for the deletion of only articles not to their liking, which destroys NPOV.  DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 30 April 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.