Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert V. R. Bassett


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Robert V. R. Bassett

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not really notable as either a professor or a prisoner-of-war or in his military career. Not a general officer. Article is nearly an orphan. Citations taken from one source only. IMO, this is an excellent example of a person who is just on the other side of notable. Student7 (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Retain - Bassett meets WP:ACADEMIC criteria 5 or 6 at two major academic institutions of higher education. Bassett was appointed chairman of the department of naval science at both Duke University and the University of New Mexico. At the times he held these positions, naval science offered an undergraduate academic minor in the College of Arts and Sciences. Thewellman (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Chair of a department is neither an endowed chair (#5) nor president of a whole university (#6). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm having difficulty finding endowed chair in the notes for criterion 5. Bassett was a full professor at both institutions. Thewellman (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not in the notes, it's in the literal text of the criterion. "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment". That's what named chair means. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * At the risk of splitting hairs, Bassett was selected, on the basis of unique experience and knowledge, to occupy two professorships funded by the United States Navy Holloway Plan. Those professorships appear to provide the academic institutions with the advantages listed in the definition you suggest. Thewellman (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment All ROTC unit commanders, regardless of branch, are listed as professors and department heads. It has nothing to do with their actual academic standing or contributions...it's more about "placing" them in a university's organization. They may be called full professors, but they have no real connection to tenured faculty or other full professors who have come up through the academic ranks. Intothatdarkness 21:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have encountered many individuals who express opinions implying a military career is somehow fundamentally different than (and usually educationally inferior to) a career in some of the other subjects taught at universities. I have heard similar comments about physical education and the fine arts. I suggest that type of discrimination is inappropriate, and a professor should have equal standing despite the different backgrounds which may have brought them to that level of achievement in the field of study chosen.Thewellman (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Thewellman. The subject may fail notability as a military officer, but pass as an academic. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The two previous comments, despite their keep opinion, already indicate that his military career (which is the entire subject of the article except for a brief mention in the lead) is non-notable. And we have zero evidence of passing WP:PROF. In particular, department chair is an administrative position that would fall under criterion #C6 but not #C5 (which is for positions that recognize academic excellence rather than administration), and the notes to #C6 clearly state "Lesser administrative posts (Provost, Dean, Department Chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify". Google scholar turns out only one uncited publication "The development of independence in the Philippines, 1934-53" so #C1 is far out of reach. And what other criteria could he possible pass? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * comment WP:Academic states "This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work". Did their work have any impact? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to think educators' impact might be measured in the achievements of their students. At least three of the men he instructed in his final year of teaching rose to flag rank. One of them became Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps. Thewellman (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The notability requirement requires proven academic output as in contribution to the field, there's a career path once they left his education to flag position - did his influence help them along it, and are there the sources to say so? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand a number of commentors doubt Bassett meets criterion 5, but I suggest criterion 5, as presently written, has more ambiguity than is being implied. Academic notability is established by meeting only one of the listed criteria. Why does the list include criterion 5 when the description named chair redirects to an article suggesting a named chair would only be awarded to someone who already met criterion 1? Who is to be notable by criterion 5 who fails to meet criterion 1? The introductory paragraph notes academics may also work outside academia, and I suggest criterion 5 is intended to offer notability to professors from non-traditional background and experience. Thewellman (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You could also suggest that pigs fly, but it wouldn't make it true. Criterion 5 is intended to shortcut deletion debates for professors whose academic accomplishments are held in such high regard by their university employer that they have been honored by an endowed chair, nothing else. It is not for people who chair departments. It is not for people whose position at the university is paid by some other arrangement than endowment. It is not for people who have a chair in their office that they sit in. It is not for people who call their office chair "rosebud". It is not even for people who hold a named chair by virtue of their administrative post rather than by academic accomplishment. (As an example, the dean of my school holds an ex officio named chair — as far as I'm concerned that wouldn't be enough for #C5 although its holder may be notable for other reasons.) And so far you have shown no evidence that Bassett actually had an endowed chair. (Hint: It would have been called the [name of donor] Professorship of [subject].) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your position, and it sounds reasonable; but the present wording of criterion 5 is not as limited as your proposed definition. Criterion 5 also supports "Holloway Plan professor of Naval Science" as a named chair. The Holloway Plan terminology was adopted by the navy to conform to the existing named chair nomenclature to emphasize the financial benefits to the Holloway Plan academic institutions. Few endowment programs have the money to support the number of chairs supported by the Holloway Plan. Thewellman (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes it sound like the Navy bought their way in rather than normal endowments to eg support academic research. Is there a source that shows the Holloway plan officers were academics rather than say administrators. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to demand a citation to support your contention that the Holloway plan money was treated as an endowed chair by the universities that received it. Please note that this typically means (1) putting money into an endowment, using only its interest to pay the professor in question, and keeping the principal permanently on the books of the university, (2) a hiring procedure that is independent of the donor, and (3) (less uniformly, but quite frequently, and what is intended by the WP:PROF criterion) a level of formal review whose criteria are significantly stricter than the criteria for promotion to full professor. You (Thewellman) seem to persist in stretching and straining the terminology to meet whatever you think will let Bassett squeak through. These words have meanings, and you seem not to be paying attention to what those meanings actually are. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * keep The nominator also wanted to destructively delete article on Murder of Eve Carson a murdered student body president of a major college. This is clearly a notable US veteran of a notable war who has been noted by many persons. Redhanker (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If it is so clear to you, then please explain how this person is a notable US veteran for those of us who don't agree with you. Transcendence (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not seem to meet notability as a military officer or an academic. The Holloway Plan was the expansion of Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps to more colleges and universities.  The article does not demonstrate that he had any more to do with that then being assigned to command NROTC units.  The senior officer assigned to the training unit is by default, the Professor of Naval Science.  Thousands of officers have served in a similar capacity and at this time there does not seem to be anything more notable about this person than any of the others.  EricSerge (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment "Thousands" seems high for the number of individuals who have served as Holloway Plan Professors of Naval Science. Do you have a source for that figure?Thewellman (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Response Okay, Hundreds. Looking at the number of NROTC units, multiply that by the number of officers who PCS out every three years and I can most assuredly get to the hundreds if not thousands.  I understand that Captain Bassett may have meant a lot to you and made quite an impression when you were an NROTC midshipman, and while his service was most certainly honorable, it does not seem to meet the threshold of notability.  That and the more I read about the Holloway Plan, the more it seems to be just an expansion of the scholarship program for NROTC after WW II.  Captain Bassett's assignment was just that, an assignment doled out to him, and may others by BUPERS.  EricSerge (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence this person meets WP:ACADEMIC. Despite what Thewellman claims above, criterion 6 is not met as David Eppstein explains above and the Holloway Plan doesn't seem to be a named chair so criterion 5 isn't met either. The military achievements don't rise to the level recommended by WP:MILNG either. Transcendence (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Per EricSerge above. All ROTC commanders are designated department heads by the universities they're posted to. It's a formality that really has nothing to do with academic achievement or excellence. Intothatdarkness 21:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Although Bassett may never have been required to defend a dissertation, He defended his ship with the men under his command through a series of battles at sea. Since academic institutions are unable to offer that learning experience during each spring semester, they delegate nomination of Holloway Plan Professor of Naval Science to the Bureau of Naval Personnel. The academic institutions reject applicants they consider unqualified to occupy the chair.Thewellman (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete he did not "defend the ship with the men under his command." As I read it, he was a junior officer abroad the Pope. The citation was for the unit. Though through no fault of his own, he seems never to have commanded any ship in wartime. The relevant policy is NOT MEMORIAL.  DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 29 October 2013 (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.