Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert R. Cargill


 * 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 SPEEDY DELETE per author / subject request and WP:SNOW.  But | seriously | folks   17:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Robert R. Cargill

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. The only google mentions of him are references to him or something he said, not coverage by independant sources. The other major mention is his own website, or the website he is "cheif architect". In addition, the majority of the article is OR.

There was a concern that entirety of the article is copied from his website, but the release of copyright was cleared by OTRS. Also, the major contributer is the subject himself. I  (said)  (did) 04:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing in the article asserts that outside sources view the individual as notable. One published paper is not itself notable, unless outside sources said so, and this article then referenced those sources. License or no, it reads like a resume, and Wikipedia is not a webhost. See also WP:NOT. Best, ZZ 04:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll add, meaning no disrespect to the subject, that an article with sources stating why Mr. Cargill is notable within his field would be fine - but the information presented here, such as classes taught and so forth, does not satisfy that requirement. He may be quite notable - I can't confirm that without additional sources. I have one article, a site from UCLA here: [], but one article does not notability make. The only other GHit for this particular Robert Cargill is the aforementioned www.bobcargill.com, here:[]. ZZ 04:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the article doesn't show that he meets the WP:N and WP:BIO standards. Perhaps someday, but not now. -- DS1953 talk 04:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep . The dispositive guideline here is Notability (academics).  I see at least one award that looks notable (criterion 6), which would satisfy WP:N.  Also, he was reportedly hired by Nicole Kidman to instruct her in religious studies, which is noteworthy in itself, albeit a single item.  Author / subject request. Disclosure:  I am the one who walked the subject through the OTRS process (after initially tagging this article for deletion as a copyvio), so I have been communicating with him for the past few days. I don't know him IRL. --  But | seriously | folks   04:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment IsraelXKV8R, please engage us adult to adult. Someone has questioned whether you are notable according to pre-established standards. It's a reasonable question to discuss; we're an encyclopedia, not geocities, and so any submission is subject to challenge. WP:N is a flawed metric in many ways but it's the one we use and it reflects some of the limitations of an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The basic issue in this case is that it's difficult for non-experts to immediately know the reputation of a scholar in a given field. By definition, Wikipedia is made by non-experts. So we have to fall back on rules of thumb and guidelines. Personally I'm undecided just now. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply Fair enough.  I apologize if you understood me as not engaging you as adults.  That is certainly not the case, and I meant no disrespect whatsoever.  On the contrary, I am the newbie here.  I don't know all the rules and guidelines. Just PLEASE don't delete the William Schniedewind page.  He is a LOCK in my opinion. IsraelXKV8R 06:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   —Espresso Addict 06:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The fact that the page is autobiographical doesn't necessarily mean the subject lacks notability. However, the fact that Cargill is a PhD student with no peer-reviewed publications and no major awards suggests he doesn't yet meet WP:PROF. The claim to notability here seems to rest mainly with the Dead Sea Scrolls Virtual Exhibition, which would seem to have raised some media interest; however, the exhibition seems already adequately covered in the article San Diego Natural History Museum and doesn't seem enough alone to justify a separate biography for its 'chief architect', especially as the academic input seems to originate predominantly in William Schniedewind. Perhaps Cargill's name could be mentioned in the relevant section in San Diego Natural History Museum? Espresso Addict 08:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - sorry Robert, but in my book a Autobiography is pretty much an automatic delete. You need to wait for others to decide whether you are Notable. Peter Ballard 12:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, I have no objection to user editing one page, but when that use turns out to be the subject, and all the information is already duplicated on their user page then I can't see a reason to keep an article which fails WP:N, and then brings up serious WP:AUTO, WP:COI and mainly WP:BLP. Darrenhusted 13:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Promising young academic does not yet satisfy WP:BIO or WP:PROF or WP:N. Notability from a prof does not rub off on students. Nor does rubbing elbows with a movie star satisfy WP:N. The page seems to be a self-promoting conflict of interest, and the subject seems to be taking the discussion too personally. It is the article being judged, not your person. Get tenure at a well regarded university, write a widely used textbook, serve on panels, get career research awards, publish lots of articles in refereed journals, and you'll be a shoe-in. Lots of Wikipedia editors have been graduate students, have had notable professors, and have published articles, without ever becoming notable. Most college professors are not notable. One research project generating a wire service story or university press release which got covered by the popular press does not satisfy WP:N.  Edison 15:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * DELETE. I'll save you all the trouble.  I've deleted the content from the Robert R. Cargill page, offering my permission as the subject.  Now, if any of you with authority to do so would be so kind as to delete the entry, I'd appreciate your doing so at your earliest convenience.  Thanx for the education in wikipedia.  Cheers.  IsraelXKV8R 15:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I can wiki-legally delete my page since the tag there says not to delete it, (and don't know HOW to delete an entry). I've deleted the contents and left instructions there and here to delete the entry, with my permission.  Thanx. IsraelXKV8R 15:50, 18 July 2007 (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.