Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Festa


 * 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   no consensus. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Roger Festa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing indicates this person passes either WP:GNG or WP:PROFESSOR. It seems to have never had significant references, and the level of detail indicates the creator simply "knew" it, and perhaps knew the subject. JFHJr (㊟) 21:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Let's get real - the nominator of this article has meticulously gone through the list of articles I have created and nominated numerous ones for deletion, most of which have existed for a long period of time and some of which have PREVIOUSLY been put to a vote. This nomination is gross incompetence and disregard for the process and is motivated by some animus stemming from a separate issue. Roger Festa was the President of the American Institute of Chemists. Criterion #3 for academics is met, and this nomination is frivolous. Adamc714 (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Question — So you're saying every president of the American Institute of Chemists is automatically notable enough for an encyclopedic biography? JFHJr (㊟) 03:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Answer - No, I'm saying that the criteria for academic notability says that "every president of the American Institute of Chemists is automatically notable". Under criterion #6, the question clearly becomes whether the AIC is a "major academic society". Unless there are some sub-criteria about which I am unaware that establish what counts as "major", then I think the criteria command this outcome. Adamc714 (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Something strange here: the article says that a "notable series of papers" was published by Festa, but I cannot find any of them in the Web of Science (all I find are three very minor papers, that have been cited just two times - and that was an obituary...) His faculty home page doesn't list any publications either. It is also difficult to gauge the importance of the American Institute of Chemists; the main society for chemistry in the US appears to be the American Chemical Society. Adamc714, as article creator you're perhaps able to give us some sources that would establish notability beyond any doubt? As for the AfD nominations, most of those articles do indeed seem problematic (and it is not at all exceptional to re-nominate an article that already underwent AfD once before - especially if the outcome was delete...). In any case, the other nominations are irrelevant here and this discussion does not seem evidence of "gross incompetence", nor "disregard of the process". A "keep" !vote based on those arguments is bound to have little influence on a closing admin's decision, so a more constructive and policy-based argument of yours would be welcome. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Here's a link establishing the presidency (http://www.theaic.org/about_history.html). The real question, then, is whether the AIC is a major academic institution. It's almost 100 years old, publishes its own academic journal (The Chemist), and hosts national symposia on the profession. The ACS may be better known, but the AIC apparently does the same sort of things. If it looks and acts like a major disciplinary association, chances are that it is. By subjecting its significance to a mere vote, we're just fostering a system whereby we reach arbitrary decisions. By my reading of Criterion #6, the rules governing this type of notability want to avoid such arbitrary votes. Adamc714 (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, my problem is that I cannot find anything significant published by Festa. That is highly unlikely if he had been president of a prestigious society as mentioned in PROF#6. So either there are publications somewhere that for some reason I do not find, or the society isn't all that notable. Kind of a chicken and the egg problem... --Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - But Festa is a professor at a liberal arts college, so he is not a researcher. PROF#6 has nothing to do with publications, it only relates to the leadership position. For all we know, they purposely elected someone from a LAS college because of his focus on on teaching as opposed to researching. But we can't get wrapped up in mere speculation - either he satisfies #6 or he doesn't. Adamc714 (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Criterion 6 only comes into play, of course, if it is clear beyond any doubt that the organization in question is significant, as it is highly unlikely that a prestigious society would elect as president someone who has not a significant reputation in the field. At this point, however, it is not clear to me that the AIoC is a significant organization, so I cannot in good conscience !vote "keep" based on his presidency of that group. The fact that nothing can be found about Festa apart from this presidency actually suggests that he's only a minor player in the field at best and that, in consequence, the AIoC is not really the kind of organization intended in criterion 6. --Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Seems to fail WP:PROF. I would be hesitant to apply Criterion 6 to the presidency of an organization with only 5000 members, which is decidedly not the primary trade organization for chemists (that would be the American Chemical Society). Similarly, where there is some coverage under the Gnews link, it seems to be throughly routine and does not discuss the subject in depth. That said, he does appear to be the sort of local personality who will continue to garner coverage and may eventually cross the bar for GNG, being awfully close already. Ray  Talk 14:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep If that society indeed has 5000 members, then that crosses the bar for me. I only go for "weak", though, because I still find it weird that I cannot find any significant publications. I also note that the article creator has not reacted to my query above abnout the "series of notable papers". Where does that remark come from? --Randykitty (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I did not make the series of notable papers claim, so I'm not in a position to comment on the possible source for that. It may very well not be accurate. I'm primarily defending the article on the AIoC grounds. Adamc714 (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * When you created the article, you mentioned a "series of papers". Where are those? (The word "notable" was indeed inserted by another editor). --Randykitty (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  01:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Ray's comment seems most compelling after searching for possible notability through news. I cannot find any notable publications either. The decision here stems on his role with the organization he headed. There does not appear to be any indication that the AiC is a major institution, as it results in only a few results through news searches or Google, none of which establish significance. I would lean toward deletion. C-Star (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. While obviously not at the level of the ACS, the AIC presidency is enough for me. It has enough coverage (e.g. regular stories in the NYT about its awards) to convince me that it's sufficiently notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 24 May 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.