Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Ball (educator)


 * 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 keep.  Daniel Bryant  00:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Ball (educator)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No proof of notability according to WP:PROFTEST. Created by the subjects family member WP:COI, as part of a vanity user page. Diletante 19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Accomplishment is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.  -- Pete.Hurd 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Bduke 23:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete given lack of reliable sources. If there was verifiable evidence of his involvement with Sesame Street or Sale of the Century, I would be inclined to keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capitalistroadster (talk • contribs) 02:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
 * keep A clearly notable educator. If it was written by a member of the family, he did a completely objective job of it. COI raises the question of possible exaggeration, but does not prove it. The accomplishments speak for themselvesDGG 06:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep on proviso article is wikified to also include better citations and sources and brought into line with the biography project, which would give increased providence to the notability of the person. thewinchester 16:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems just notable enough, and doesn't appear to have any serious POV issues, so WP:COI becomes a non-issue. Lankiveil 00:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep. Not written in the manner of a vanity page.--ZayZayEM 02:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would prefer it kept, but improved by someone else. I'm happy to not involve myself further, recognising my initial mistake in the creation. The external links are to bodies that have records of his employment. I have not been exhaustive. He is retired now, and not likely to ever add to the achievements. DDB 02:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I see a few comments saying that the subject is "notable enough." If this is the case, please say exactly which listed criteria of WP:PROFTEST is satisfied. COI is really a secondary concern to me. -- Diletante 15:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand the criteria points satisfied are
 * 1. as Dr Ball is recognised through academic fellowship as the authority on Educational Testing Measurement, he was foundation professor of the Sydney University department, he was foundation Chief Educational Evaluator for Children';s Television Workshop in NY in the US. He was ETS' consultant for university entrance SATs in the US. to give a few examples.
 * 2, has similar arguments adding his work (privalege) as Editor of the Journal of Educational Psychology for nearly thirty years.
 * 3 and 4 are satisfied, and a few of his books are listed
 * 5. his theories on Educational TV are widely known, disseminated and accepted praxis.
 * 6. While, admittedly, his time as Chairman of the Academic Board of Sydney University, and as Pro Vice Chancellor (community affairs) were professional appointments, as was CEO Victorian Board of Studies, as was consultancy to Saudi Arabia to establish an Australian school in Saudi Territory, with Victorian curricula, these were also honorary placements. DDB 09:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ddball (talk • contribs) 09:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep per DDB. I would also argue that Chairman of the Academic Board and Pro Vice Chancellor at Sydney University are both very important positions for an academic and make, or at least add to, an assertion of notability. --Bduke 01:24, 14 April 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.