Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Mark Isaac


 * 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.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

R. Mark Isaac

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Disputed PROD, so bringing it to AfD. Subject is a non-notable college professor who does not satisfy WP:PROF.

These AfD's are now separated. Dsreyn 17:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.  -- Pete.Hurd 15:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * comment I anticipate many users will want to comment separately on many of these. I think splitting them into individual cases will be worth the effort. Pete.Hurd 15:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Object to bundling these all together. All they appear to have in common is their institution, which is respectable enough that their affiliation with it is no black mark against them, and their initial creator, who appears to be an alum of that institution (not close enough an affiliation, I think, to violate WP:COI — what other kind of person do you expect to create articles on these people, but someone who already has some knowledge of them?). I think these should be discussed individually. If we have to !vote on the bundle as a collective, I !vote strong keep as the list largely consists of award-winning named chairs who on the face of it appear to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein 17:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that it has been unbundled, I still !vote strong keep for Isaac. Named chair and officially designated by his institution as "eminent scholar", important editorial and scholarly society connections, undeniably notable collaborations. —David Eppstein 17:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per David Eppstein. Pete.Hurd 22:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Truly an obvious case. Chairman of department,names faculty position many publications as shown in the references. I think a Speedy keep would be justified DGG 02:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Once again, named chairs are not automatic notability - the assumption that these people are always notable is a hand-waving argument at best.  As it stands, the article doesn't not establish sufficient notability. fbb_fan 16:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep -- again the article mentions a) the contributions of his work, and b) provides specific references. Plenty of legs to stand on other than a named professorship, which presumably FSU would not give out without damn good reason.  I typed him into scholar.google.com.  His work is published in the top econ journals and is cited frequently by top people.  This is a very easyt case for a strong keep, in my opinion, and that fact that he has coauthored with Charles Plott of Cal Tech, who we let by with a one sentence stubb, bodes in favor of keeping him.  What in the heck does the nominator have against FSU faculty??????  Why are we holding them to a different standard than Caltech and other faculty???? With the exception of Leo Sandon, who should be deleted as insignificant, these are some real strong faculty, in comparison to most professors I see on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.216.26 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment. The existence of one article (Charles Plott in this case) does not justify existence of another (you could always nominate the Plott article if you think it is unfit, though you might want to log in with a username if you do that).  Also, someone is allowed to nominate an article without making a thorough sweep of Wikipedia for all similar articles.  Unless I'm mistaken, these FSU articles were all written by one or maybe two editors, and were very poorly written at that - little to no assertion of notability in any of the articles.  That's the common theme here, I believe. fbb_fan 01:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A Strong Keep -- No bdoubt about it that Isaac is a big deal in experimental economics. I looked up many syllabi from graduate courses at Yale, Princeton and Cal Tech and they assign his work as classics in the field.  Many of the comments here note that these nominations were to make a point about weak or incomplete nominations of FSU faculty, but other than sayong one criteria alone, such as a chair, fails to establish notewithiness, these comments fail to show how the faculty are not noteworthy.  Isaac's entry, for example, a) mentions coauthors, including a Novbel Prize winner with which he repeatedly writes, b) describes the significance of his work in a factually accurate manner with no puffery, and c) gives citations to his work.  In addition, he is an eminent chair at a major research research university.  To claim that this does not meet the Prof criteria is to rewrite them to make a point.  It is the job of the editors in deleting entries to address entries on the merits, not to try to make a point or express some objection to the person who nominated them.
 * 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.