Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael A. Moodian


 * 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. —  Aitias  // discussion 19:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael A. Moodian

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable editor of a non-notable book. Fails WP:BIO.

Note - Redirection pages also needing deleted:
 * Mike Moodian
 * Michael Moodian
 * Dr. Michael A. Moodian
 * Michael Allen Moodian.

 Pyrrhus  16 ''' 13:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of notability. --Crusio (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not yet notable, though I note the books has been published and is listed in about 30 WorldCat libraries--but that is hardly enough. It might have been much better to wait before introducing this article. BTW, I do not think it is necessary to list redirect pages at the AfD, they will be attended to when the article is deleted. DGG (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - a prof doing his job, but not notable. J L G 4 1 0 4  22:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Aside from issues mentioned in the previous comments, the subject has no refereed publications, according to a check of Web of Science using (Author = Moodian M*). Since the notability claim obviously rests on WP:PROF, the subject does not meet even this minimal requirement. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Web of Science is fine and all that, but it is possible to have a refereed publication somewhere in the universe without coming up there. WoS isn't the only database. Just a side note. J L G 4 1 0 4  02:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. WoS is not very strong in the humanities. Also, it is highly unlikely that someone would become professor (even at the lowest "assistant" level) without any refereed publications. --Crusio (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please allow me to respond to the previous two remarks. This sort of debate regarding Web of Science has come up before. WoS' name erroneously implies narrowness, but it covers all academic subject areas. (Thomson-Reuters indicates >8,700 journals covered, including strong representation in the Humanities.) Indeed, if I search for one of my favorite poets, Mary Jo Bang, I find her contributions (45 hits) in journals such as Poetry, The Paris Review, Western Humanities Review, etc. The confusion, I believe, really centers on the meaning of the word "refereed". I propose that what should be kept in mind when measuring against WP:PROF are the long-established conventions of academia. Specifically, not all "refereed" publications are considered equal, as anyone who has ever sat on a tenure/promotion committee will attest. Conference papers, posters, and even book chapters typically do not weigh equally with archival journal contributions (some sectors excepted, e.g. computer science) because the acceptance standards of the latter are appreciably more stringent. Academic committees largely presume that any truly notable work will have found its way into the archival journal literature. Google Scholar, a free database, is often used here as a substitute, but it has its own problems with incomplete coverage (as well as secrecy about what is covered). If we should want to judge WP:PROF notability according to the traditional academic definition of "refereed", then WoS hits would seem to set a very reasonable minimum standard for most cases. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC).


 * Delete. As noted above, does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:02, 28 January 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.