Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Stephen Lampert


 * 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. Ironholds (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael Stephen Lampert

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Prod removed. Perhaps a well-loved teacher, but no reliable sources given or found to establish notability of an individual on Wikipedia. Minor writing, minor award, otherwise much love of a teacher. tedder (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  -- tedder (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- tedder (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- tedder (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very worthy teacher but does not achieve notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Fine, fine delete away then. And while Tedder is out deleting, why doesn't he make himself useful? His negative personal comments are contaminated with bad words! It makes me question his credibility to exercise administrative powers. DonaldET3 (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see any unreasonable negative comments by tedder that would offend WP policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC).
 * It's comments about tedder that DonaldET3 is talking about. I'm certainly offensive, and my utility and credibility are questionable. tedder (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And don't forget "morally obese". — Satori Son 14:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as insufficiently notable per the WP:GNG. No evidence this person has yet been the subject of “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” — Satori Son 14:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources located that may meet the WP:GNG. — Satori Son 14:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just noticed two things: why is tedder doing nothing questionable if he said he was, and why is tedder smiling? DonaldET3 (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * :( tedder (talk) 2:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * better! DonaldET3 (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. From the state of the article as I found it, I was expecting this to be a delete, but then I found profiles of him in USA Today and Science . I think that's enough for WP:GNG. I added those two sources and removed a lot of fluff from the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is 2 refs enough for GNG? For researchers we usually require many hundred of cites for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC).
 * The cites we use to satisfy WP:PROF are generally of much lower quality. I think two obituaries published in journals would be enough for a researcher. Similarly, I think two stories directly about the subject in major national-level media are enough in this case. There were also quite a few more articles about him in local newspapers that I didn't think worth mentioning. It's not really reasonable to expect high school teachers to meet standards that are written in terms of things that professors do and high school teachers generally don't do. It's rare to be notable non-locally as a high school teacher, but it does happen, and I think we should recognize the cases when it does. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Disagree. Part of the reason obituaries are significant is that it means that the person's achievements are still memorable many years (presumably)after that person's retirement, indicating lasting significance.  USA Today profiles etc. are nothing like that.  Furthermore, the awards are nothing like those described in WP:ACAD.  Even trying to interpret his "field' as high school science teaching, I see no "significant impact' etc as called for by WP:ACAD.  Meanwhile, GNG wants sources to cover the subject "in detail."  These are thin in-the-classroom pieces with little in the way of background, issues, personal life, etc. EEng (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Great work researching and cleaning up the article. tedder (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Impressive, David Eppstein appears to be an excelent researcher. Is this an exotic internet browser, or a refined searching technique, or am I just missing something? And another thing, WHERE ARE ALL OF THESE DEBATERS COMING FROM!? DonaldET3 (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember, I simply searched for the combination of his last name and the name of his high school in Google news archive. Also, I'm here from the academic deletion sorting page linked above, but there are some editors who go through large numbers of deletion discussions from the list of all such discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. A dedicated article in USA Today and a dedicated announcement in Science are first-class sources. This case is one of those "success stories" where the pressure applied by an AfD has led to a materially improved an article. Bravo. Agricola44 (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep - USA Today and Science bolstered by local sources all covering the subject establish that Lampert meets the general notability criteria. There is no need to consider his notability as an academic. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'd say the USA Today piece alone shows he meets the general criteria. The removal of the fluff and the additional sources all make this an article worth keeping.  Worm    TT   09:17, 10 February 2011 (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.