Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Cram


 * 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. This is not a notable person. While there is a set of newspaper articles linked that mention him, there is no significant discussion of the person or their work. Being a professor is by itself not a reason for notability, and being an administrator or adjunct faculty member even less so. What we have is a person with a job and a number of social functions, mentioned in the papers, but piling up those mentions that do not discuss the topic in any depth does not add up to encyclopedic notability, as DGG, Candleabracabra, and David Eppstein point out. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Roger Cram

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable under WP:PROF or anything else--I cannot even decipher from the references what subject he was a professor of. the references are pure PR for his projects.  DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  21:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  21:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as possible hoax. Even if not, no notability found and only of local interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete This looks hoaxy. Without strong references, no reason to keep.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Why would you think this is a hoax? This article cites a variety of newspaper articles, and all of them discuss Roger Cram. They are well-established newspapers published in a variety of locations, and many of the articles are accessible online. None of them are primary sources; they are not public relations pieces. Cram is an established expert on the Tuskegee Airmen and he lectures on this subject often. He is a prominent member of the Hiram, Ohio community and has received much publicity from his administration of an organization that performs random acts of kindness. I have added an additional six newspaper articles as sources. Neelix (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. The links to news articles seem to all be broken or lead to unrelated materials. It does look like a hoax indeed.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The links are not broken; you simply need a valid login. I don't understand how people can think that this article is a hoax. Isn't anyone willing to look up the newspaper articles through their local library? These are reputable newspapers with no relation to each other all discussing the same person. Surely, they didn't all conspire together to deceive the world about the existence of a Tuskegee Airmen scholar. Neelix (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't think this is a hoax — searching hiram.edu for his name yields plenty of hits — but that's not the same as finding evidence of academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I just fixed 9 of the sources, now freely viewable. Only 2 or 3 are still unviewable offline. The article is sufficient for WP:GNG. I hope the Delete votes above will revisit now that a large number of new sources have been added. Those sources include:
 * (Offline)
 * (Offline)
 * -- Green  C  16:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (Offline)
 * (Offline)
 * -- Green  C  16:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (Offline)
 * (Offline)
 * -- Green  C  16:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * -- Green  C  16:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * -- Green  C  16:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * -- Green  C  16:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * -- Green  C  16:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per GreenC and WP:HEY. While he probably fails the Prof test, I'd say he passes WP:GNG, based on the good sourcing.  He's a bit of an odd bird, no? Bearian (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I was asked to reconsider. I consider the article still promotional & of very borderline notability : the last sentence relies on what notable people also talked at an occasion he did; most of the article is about what other people did; the references are basically PR notices about his individual talks--one does not get notable by giving a dozen public speeches, unless there is much more than local reporting. One does not even get notable if the talks are about a famous group of people. There is still no information about what he is a professor of -- the relevant reference just shows he was called Professor twice in a column in a local online newspaper. I'd be very glad to see some evidence of notability, but this is just ILIKEHIM.  DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi DGG .. AfD is a topic-level not content-level discussion. If there is bad content, lets remove it. The notability of the topic is independent of the article. -- Green  C  00:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. The updated article has even more local newspapers and other such marginal sources. What it doesn't have is sources that better demonstrate notability to me. My delete opinion from above hasn't changed. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Local sources" are OK, so long as they are not all from the same location, this one has diverse locations. Per our rules-based criteria at GNG, a topic is notable if it has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. You are not obligated to agree with GNG (IAR), so I guess the question is why should we make a special exception and ignore GNG in this case. It's unclear what is meant by "marginal sources", they all appear to be reliable published news sources. -- Green  C  15:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. None of the cites are about him, they are about other subjects and he gets noted. None of his career accomplishments meet any objective Wikipedia criteria warranting an article. But he does seem like a nice person, and for that I applaud him! Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Mr. Cram is obviously not a hoax and IMHO is "wikipediable" as the current article exists (at least under WP:GNG if nothing else). Not that this satisfies notoriety requirements in and of itself, Mr. Cram is an adjunct faculty member affiliated with Hiram College, has an office in Hinsdale Hall, and has taught (and for all I know is still teaching) numerous courses at Hiram. I might also mention that the Tuskegee Airmen article is rated B-class (Mid-importance) in WikiProject African diaspora. Perhaps Mr. Cram, who is an acknowledged authority in this area, might find additional notoriety along this line. Not to mention his efforts on behalf of SSSSH and Hal Reichle . JimScott (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Passing GNG does not automatically entitle one to an article, though I was ignorant enough to argue the contrary in my first few months here. We are entitled to make our own judgement over whether what is reported is significant enough for an encyclopedia. The typical human interest stories about unusual people are the sort of thing which fills up newspapers, but should not be filling up encyclopedias.(We have reasonably accepted a few when there has really been major national coverage; we have unreasonably  sometimes accepted a few others.About half the sources above are not about him. but about the Tuskegee Airman, and merely mention him.  Being an adjunct faculty member is not a distinction--its normally a hopefully temporary part time job,  but  sometimes a way of letting someone non-academic in profession teach a course in their specialty--and sometimes a mere courtesy, But there is indeed no reason to think this a hoax.  DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am surprised by your interpretation of WP:GNG. The guideline states that, if a subject meets the general notability criteria, that subject "is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". Neelix (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The guideline goes on to say:
 * "* 'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
 * This is that "more in-depth discussion". JohnCD (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed; this discussion is a valid one to be having. I haven't seen anyone making the argument that this article violates what Wikipedia is not. The arguments for deleting this article have been either hoax-based or notability-based, and I think we have established at this point that the article is not a hoax and that it meets the notability guidelines. You are certainly welcome to introduce novel reasons for deleting the article if you believe that it violates what Wikipedia is not. Neelix (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How has notability been established? Where is the substantial coverage in reliable independent sources? Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 9 sources have been posted above. If you agree that is enough is a matter of personal opinion but your suggestion that there are no sources is inaccurate. -- Green  C  16:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do any of them have substantial coverage of this subject? If so which ones? Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2014 (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.