Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Flood


 * 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. Wikipedia notability standards have been met. Concerns about BLP issues should be raised at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard  SilkTork  *YES! 22:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Michael Flood

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

I am Michael Flood, the subject of this entry. I did not create the entry, but once I became aware of it, I have occasionally edited it. I have been routinely frustrated at the inclusion of inaccurate, irrelevant, or defamatory material in this entry. For example, one quarter of the entry is devoted to my comments on International Men's Day, for me an utterly minor aspect of the work I have done, but clearly something important to whomever added the material. Anyway, I see that there is already some dispute over notability etc. Given that, and my own frustrations with the piece, I am proposing deletion.

Sincerely,

michael flood.

Completing incomplete nomination. I have no opinion on the merits of the case.Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Our relevant notability guideline in the case of this article is wp:academic, at least one criteria of which appears to be satisfied here (the first, that the subject of the article has made a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline").  It's also worth pointing out the subject appears to be widely quoted in their field, at least according to a quick Google News archive search.  That said, the subject of the article is the person apparently requesting deletion here, but for all the wrong reasons, so I'll address the next part directly to him...  What you are bringing up are issues that can be addressed under wp:blp and particularly wp:undue.  The best course would be to outline your specific concerns on the article's talk page or even create a draft of how you believe the article should read and post it to the article's talk page.  We can go from there, but deletion isn't the proper (or justified) course of action, and I hope you'll reconsider and work with us to address your concerns.    user:j    (aka justen)   16:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Satisfactory scholarly standard but as LP seems to imply that article is being used as attack page then I advise delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC).
 * I think "attack page" is too strong; it appears Flood simply doesn't like the way some people are characterizing his views, wants to exert control over the article, and is frustrated at his lack of success in this regard. This is not a reason to delete it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Nomoskedasticity. Additionally a reading of Dr. Flood's published essays shows extensive and special emphasis on negative male behaviours, perhaps validly, which editors are within thier rights to cite. This does not amount to hate speech. If editors (including Dr. Flood) wish to balance the article by introducing male-positive statements -although demonstrably less frequent throughout his writings- they are welcome to do so as long as they are not given undue weight. I suggest a section be added about male violence against women as it appears strongly throughout many of Dr. Flood's writings. 123.211.246.13 (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Michael Flood again. (Apologies if I'm not following the appropriate format for responses to this discussion.) Blackworm's comments immediately above are a good example of why I'm frustrated by the entry. Blackworm mistakenly claims that most of the sources are self-published. Instead, most come from published academic sources: refereed academic journals, encyclopedias, and books. I have simply made such published pieces also available on my own site. Similarly, the new material in the entry on "Controversy" (which appeared only in the last couple of days) is a misrepresentation of the gist of the report in question. I don't believe I'm some kind of incredibly important scholar or public intellectual in Australia. I've made some contributions to scholarship, and I've got a profile because I've participated in public debate. (That also means I'm a target for attack, particularly from anti-feminist advocates.) But there are plenty of other sociologists (and others) who've done far more than me and who are absent from Wikipedia. Anyway, I continue to lean towards deletion. I take the point of those above that I could work to encourage accurate and appropriate information on the page. But I'm not very encouraged about the prospect of doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael G Flood (talk • contribs) 12:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, seems to meet all the relevant notability criteria (ie, WP:ACADEMIC). The issues that the nominator (who I presume is the subject of the article, although one can't be too careful) bring up are, I feel, best dealt with by working to remove bias, and enforcing the WP:BLP provisions rigorously, rather than through deletion.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete. Seems to meet absolutely no relevant notability criteria.  I would ask those who have the opposite opinion to present evidence of Flood's "significant impact" in the field of sociology.  Or his "highly prestigious academic award" (WP:ACADEMIC).  Or, indeed, any of the criteria established in that guideline.  The first three paragraphs of the article establish nothing of that nature.  The article seems to be a personal webpage, with a majority of the "sources" and external links pointing to Flood's own website, an apparent vestige from his defunct magazine.  Blackworm (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep. Amended to reflect newly presented info on notability.  I now agree that notability is established.  Blackworm (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep. Amended to reflect newly presented info on notability.  I now agree that notability is established.  Blackworm (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, Dr. Flood, for any misunderstanding. I realize that some of the article links to your website contain material originally published elsewhere; however as you seem to note, Wikipedia does not generally contain biography articles on academics published in reliable sources unless a "significant impact" on the field is also verifiable.  Please understand that I say this not to disparage you in any way.  Regards.  Blackworm (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, Wikipedia is a community. Many of us have differing viewpoints, and our goal is to reach a consensus.  For example, I simply spent a few minutes searching for "Michael Flood" with various additional search terms through a few news archive databases, including the widely accessible Google News, and found you frequently quoted in secondary source coverage of important topics as a "specialist" in your field, as well as articles which discuss your research in particular.  I believe the extent of this coverage more than satisfies wp:academic, while User:Blackworm apparently disagrees.  Which is why we have these sorts of discussions in the first place (again, to try to reach a consensus)...    user:j    (aka justen)   01:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, Handbook of studies on men & masculinities (with a prestigious publisher – Sage), currently in more than 350 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. Also meets the more general WP:BIO criteria; the news coverage uncovered by j (aka justen) clearly indicates notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep AfD is not for vandalism control. Just remove slanderous content, and if the same editor persists, take that up at WP:AIV.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 20:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems notable from news coverage and influence on colleagues in sociology. If parts are given undue weight, then we can fix that by editing, not deleting. Fences and windows (talk) 20:42, 18 May 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.