Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard M. Waugaman


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Richard M. Waugaman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article contains no citations to reliable third party sources about the subject. The biographical information tracks the (self-written) biography from Professor Waugaman’s personal page at Georgetown University. To my knowledge there are no reliable third party biographies of Professor Waugaman that are not based on his self-written biography.

I've added an abundance of new material to the article - frankly it was pretty weakly written, but what can we expect from a publisher that empowers Mr. Reedy to define what constitutes a "reliable source." I've done the best I can as a first pass to clean it up. If you folks are going to delete this, you ought to at least delete a version of the article that doesn't make Wikipedia look incompetent, wouldn't you agree?--BenJonson (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It is unclear what aspect of Professor Waugaman’s work meets the requirement of WP:N. Though the current article does not refer to his professional affiliation with Georgetown University or his position as a clinical track professor emeritus -- possibly because these were in the title of his personal page at Georgetown and therefore not part of the text that was paraphrased in writing the WP page -- it would seem to fall within the scope of WP:SCHOLAR, and the criteria listed there.

Per WP:SCHOLAR, “Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study.”  Dr. Waugaman’s Google Scholar entry lists a number of works published in the areas of psychoanalysis, psychology and Shakespeare studies. Many of these have been cited in subsequent works; but on closer examination, the overwhelming number of citations in the field of Shakespeare scholarship were in later works by Professor Waugaman. Though Professor Waugaman has published many works on Shakespeare, many of the publications were in journals dedicated to the Oxfordian fringe theory of Shakespeare authorship.

His scholarship has had negligible impact on the field. Gary Taylor, George Matthew Edgar Professor of English at Florida State University, writing as co-editor of Italian scholarly journal Memoria di Shakespeare, wrote to Waugaman about a paper submitted for publication that it “seem to me profoundly unscholarly, and. . . would have the effect of undermining the credibility and status of other contributions to the volume.” This is not submitted with the POV that Taylor is right and Waugaman is wrong; only as evidence that Waugaman’s scholarship has been largely ignored and has had no notable impact on the field. Bomagosh (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  14:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Everymorning, have you by any chance actually read any of Dr. Waugaman's scholarly articles, or are you shooting in the dark here, and counting on the reliability of Mr. Reedy for your representations? Do you understand the relevance of your own carefully guarded statement that Professor Taylor was *"*writing* as a co-editor" of the Journal (i.e., that he was NOT a co-editor, never was and never has been, except on one issue in which he was gerrymandered in to deliver the hatchet job *after* the paper had already been accepted by other editors)? its really kind of a disgrace to wikipedia when such decontextualized data are used to make an argument--BenJonson (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO as per nom. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete. Meets WP:SCHOLAR. Key phrase in quote is "...on the field of study." The Oxfordian/Shakespeare authorship research field is the field of study here, not Shakespeare studies in general. In that regard, Dr. Waugaman's citations and published articles would put him within the category of notable/passing the "professor test." Verkinto 01:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete. Meets WP:SCHOLAR. See extensive further discussion on this page, as well as the efficiently updated version of the page in question, which backs up Verkinto's point in many ways, including pointing out that one of Professor Waugaman's collaborates was Harold Searles, whom even Wikipedia (alas for the deleters of the world) describes as "one of the pioneers of psychiatric medicine specialising in psychoanalytic treatments of schizophrenia."--BenJonson (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you do not get to opine on this matter, since it is an SAQ-related topic and you are "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, broadly construed across all namespaces." Tom Reedy (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If so, you need to produce some reliable, independent sources stating such, not to mention some reliable, independent sources that classify the "Oxfordian/Shakespeare authorship research field" as anything other than a fringe theory. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * done (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_M._Waugaman) Why couldn't YOU do this? One has to wonder. Do you even know the names of the professional journals in which Professor Waugaman has published, Mr Reedy? Cut out the third partyism for a change and stick to the point at hand, which is whether Professor Waugaman passes a notability test. Verkinto says he does. I agree.--BenJonson (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact you have not. I don't set the standards of reliable third-party sources; you need to read WP:RS for that. I also decline becoming embroiled in an edit war ("going to the mat", as you put it) with you, a topic-banned editor, and instead have reported your actions to an administrator. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

"In FACT," quoth the ex-sherrif's office public relations manager Reedy? "In fact'" Mr.Reedy you are presently powerless. You don't know how powerless you are. Your reversion of my revisions to the page, the wholesale, prejudicial, and abrupt manner of expression, which rejects the ideas along with the person, now join all the other elements of the public case regarding your errors and dishonesty. You have no right to revert a comprehensive new, improved version of this page in the midst of a discussion like this one. You have made something of a career out of attacking dedicated scholars like Dr. Waugaman, have as is well known repeatedly removed citations to Dr. Waugaman's publications, including articles in Oxford University Press's *Notes and Queries*, from this article. You then performed the miracle of getting wikipedia to blacklist professor Waugaman's website. That was quite a trick, Tom: What's next? Could it be that the world needs a better Tom Reedy, one less preoccupied with the fantasy of being the Texas Ranger of the Shakespeare question? I'm sorry to be so blunt, Tom, but you put me to it, you really do, by your brusque style of collaboration. One might almost suspect that your intent is not collaborate, as Wikipedians should do, but rather to dominate, bully, and get your ways by Jesuitical tricks and doublings. You are about as capable, Mr. Reedy, of evaluating Mr. Waugaman's notability in this case as a hyena is capable of passing himself off as a bookstore cat. Recuse yourself, for shame. --BenJonson (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you remove the personal attacks and read your talk page and answer Ed. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Distracting with epithets doesn't alter the category error. Measure the noteworthiness of Dr. Waugaman within the context of the field in which his entry was written. If you're going to classify his Wikipedia entry under Shakespeare Authorship, then that's the category in which his noteworthiness should be judged. Verkinto 02:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If you want to improve the article, then please do so, Verkinto. In my opinion, Dr. Waugaman is notable, but if there is strong objection to the present wording, it should just be changed, not turned into an excuse for deletion. Thanks.--BenJonson (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Professor Waugaman uses the title "faculty expert on Shakespeare for media contacts," not "Shakespeare authorship," so his claimed field of study is not as narrow as you state. Even if his claimed field is narrowly focused on authorship, WP:N requires that the subject be notable within that field of study, as demonstrated through reliable independent sources.  Even within that redefined field, Waugaman's publications are not widely cited outside of his own subsequent publications.  Most of his Shakespeare-related publications are in journals or through publishing houses with an explicit POV on Shakespeare authorship.  Bomagosh (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Not notable for his medical work. As a minor WP:FRINGE Shakespeare scholar we need mainstream sources to provide a properly neutral point of view on his work and how it differs from the mainstream. The Times Higher Education is such a source and, if kept, should be more prominently incorporated into the article text. But as a source for notability I think that article plus the Telegraph article on the same events fail WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Greetings, Dr. Eppstein. Since you are noted computer scientist, I wonder what algorithm you followed to reach the conclusion that Professor Waugaman is not notable for his medial work. I am anxious to know.  As I'm sure you'll agree, such a global assessment should be based on thorough research before announcing a conclusion. Dr. Waugaman seems notable to me for many reasons, including both his extensive publication record in psychoanalysis and psychology as well as for the work that has kept Mr. Reedy busy deleting links to for several years now. So, how did you reach that opinion and how strongly do you wish to defend it?  You seem like a really decent guy but I'm not very satisfied by your rationale. --BenJonson (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I skipped over this quickly because I thought it was clear-cut and that the more interesting debate was whether he was notable for his literary work. But a pretty big clue is given by the citation counts in his Google scholar profile. Medical professionals whose medical research makes them notable typically have multiple publications with over 100 citations each. Stars of the field might be another order of magnitude more than that. Waugaman's top citation count is 13, and three out of the top four publications that he lists are literary analysis rather than medical case studies. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not meet WP:SCHOLAR: “The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline ... as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. ... The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly-cited academic work.” Web of Science records 15 articles by R[ichard M] Waugaman on Shakespeare, de Vere, or authorship, with 10 citations. But only 4 of these citations are by scholars other than Waugaman himself. The other 6 are self-citations, and 9 of these papers have never been cited at all. His two Kindle books are self-published by his own Oxfreudian vanity press. His so-called title, “Faculty Expert on Shakespeare for Media Contacts at Georgetown University” is self-assumed. The only requirement for this informal role is a willingness to be contacted: Quidlibet (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) — Quidlibet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I've added quite a number of Dr. Waugaman's other articles to the list of works cited. --BenJonson (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Struck comments by topic-banned editor. See the abovementioned link to the topic ban and User talk:BenJonson. Kraxler (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:SCHOLAR: as per nom.  —Sicinius  —Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2015 (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.