Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen P. Sheehi


 * 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 keep as no one is recommending deletion. Discussion continues at Talk:Stephen P. Sheehi. Pan Dan 22:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Stephen P. Sheehi

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Likely autobiography Pan Dan 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.  -- Pete.Hurd 23:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I just want to add that while in most AfD's what should be evaluated is the potential, not the current, state of the article, in a case of conflict of interest concerns I feel the article should be deleted even if the article has potential. It is not appropriate for single-purpose accounts to shoehorn articles about themselves into Wikipedia by creating an article and then having other, disinterested, editors bring the article up to Wikipedia standards.  See also User_talk:Jaxon_km.  Pan Dan 23:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Weak Keep Judging objectively by the work and how his peers view it, which is what counts.
 * He is an Associate Professor at a good but not very-top-ranking research university. He's director of a language program/. . He has written one book, 4 academic articles, and 2 other pieces. he has another book and article forthcoming, sometime.  He has also done some writing for newspapers & web sites, which he knows enough not to list in his on-line academic CV, but  it will help him here.  It's what he did, & he presents it in a reasonable way.
 * I disagree somewhat with Pan Dan--if someone writes an article about himself and he is in fact notable & it can be documented, and it's a article without POI or where the POI can be removed, I'm glad we have it. But I agree with him that it makes us look very carefully indeed about documented notability. I think his encyclopedic value for WP is borderline, as many Associate professors are. If he does write his 2nd book, and it gets good reviews, and he has attracted more professional attention, he might then be notable. But not yet. The COI isn't fatal, but it didn't help. If he can document some spectacular  published reviews--not book jacket blurbs--it might make a difference. Or if he can document the wide influence of his web and newspaper writing, which might conceivably make him notable as a non-academic writer. DGG 06:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to Week keep on the basis of the two book reviews. The Volk one is quite favorable, the other less so--nonetheless, its oly one book Furthermore, I do not think it matters who wrote the article, if the end result is objective. The suspicion on autobios is because the evaluation of the career and the presentation of material cannot be taken at face value, but must be vigorously checked. I've checked this, and I've read the reviews.  In general, I  also do not think such an article should go into much detail about the work--if anything,  the description of the book is excessive. . I was not able to ind any mention of him in the external references at the links given. DGG 21:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If no significant reviews of any of his other publications are found, perhaps the best thing to do would be to rename the article as Foundations of Modern Arab Identity (the title of the book) and refactor the article as being about the book, rather than about the person. The biographical information about Sheehi that can only be found in non-independent sources such as his university's website would be removed. Pan Dan 21:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * RESPONSE I offered such extensive review of the book in response to the notablity criteria that was raised earlier. It was understood that for an individual to meet such criteria, they would have to be deemed a pioneer and an essential contributor to the field and the theory (among other notions). Sheehi has done just this. I am not at odds with renaming the page "Foundation of Modern Arab Identity", but I believe the criteria along which this has been decided or suggested is relatively unclear and seems to shift from day to day. I believe it was made clear that he indeed fulfills more than one of the criteria for notability. Also, I have read the works of the people who have cited Sheehi. If it is necessary, I will contact them to provide me with citation; also I am aware that some of their work is forthcoming. It is one thing to delete an article on fimrly agreed upon criteria and expectations, quite another to arbitrarily pick and choose which to abide by. As it stands, I believe the issue has been clarified and I still hold firmly to my conviction that the page should not be deleted or altered to preclude his personal information. Admittedly however, the page does need revision, which I have offered to attend to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.88.208.60 (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Well, even if the article is kept in its current from (with its current title), information about Prof. Sheehi that cannot be verified in reliable sources should be removed in any case. However, that's something we can discuss at the article's talk page.  Since no one here is recommending that the article should be deleted, I am going to close this discussion as a speedy keep. Pan Dan 22:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Erroneous premise for deletion In clarification I just want to say that this is NOT an autobiography as I created the page with permission from Dr. Sheehi to use the information that was present on his Univeristy website. I decided to create the page as I have been researching his work and thought it would help other researchers reference him more easily and know more about what he did if they had a tool like a Wikipedia Page. I am a bit confused as to what the mission of Wikipedia is from the previous comment by DGG. It seems rather elitist to me that a purportedly neutral website pick and choose what scholars to include predicated on information pertaining to their status in the scholarly world. In fact, Prof. Sheehi has been in the lecture circuit for more than two years and garnishing a lot of attention on his recent reseach projects both on the history of photography and radical activism in the Arab world. He has much more  than 4 articles in print although I chose to include those because he chooses those as "Selected Articles" on his univerrsity website. He is well known in the scholarly realm of Middle Eastern studies which is in itself a difficult field to penetrate. I believe his page should remain on Wikipedia and in turn allow for more pages of this kind in an attempt to further solidify research efforts. Jaxon_km —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.88.208.60 (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
 * "I created the page with permission from Dr. Sheehi" -- As I explained at User_talk:Jaxon_km, neither Prof. Sheehi nor anyone close to him (as you seem to be) should write about him on Wikipedia. Pan Dan 21:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In actuality, I am not close to him; I have read your comments and understand the term "conflict of interests". As I mentioned in my comment above, i have been researching Dr. Sheehi and have e-mailed him frequently to get further information on him and his previous work. While doing so, I thought it might be a good idea to have a page that other researchers could easily access when finding themselves in the same position as I had been. That is when I communicated with him, via e-mail, and asked for his permission to use the information on his website to create a Wikipedia page. Any further clarification needed? I believe it is pretty straightforward, re-quoting me is unnecessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaxon km (talk • contribs) 00:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
 * After thinking about it, I'll accept that your connection to Prof. Sheehi is as you say it is and concede to you that this connection doesn't mean you shouldn't write about him on Wikipedia. This leads me to try to see if he passes the notability criteria that we apply to all academics.  From what I can tell from searching, he contributes to some blogs and wrote an op-ed to the local paper in Columbia (SC) which drew some reader responses.  He (or his work) does not appear to be the subject of reliable sources, independent of him and of his affiliations, that we could use to write a neutral encyclopedia article.  The article itself is not written from a neutral point of view (which led me to believe it was an autobiography) and does not cite reliable sources.  He does not appear to pass the notability criteria, so I still think the article should be deleted. Whether the article is kept or deleted, if you are interested in Prof. Sheehi's research, may I suggest that you add information to Wikipedia about the topics he researches, not necessarily about him.  For example you might want to take a look at the articles in Category:Arab or Category:Marxism.  Pan Dan 23:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I still think the article should not be deleted, I thank you for your comments, they are greatly appreciated as my comments are as they stand. I will take into account what you said and work towards integrating more information on the kind of research he does, rather than just information about him. --138.88.208.60 02:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Jaxon


 * I have edited the page to include pertinent information that will lend considerable leverage to Prof. Sheehi with regard to the notability criteria mentioned above. Consideing that there have been reviews in which scholars have indeed cited his work as seminal to the field, he has been cited in many scholars' work, and his book is used as a textbook in various schools across the country, I believe Sheehi fulfills the criteria for notability as professed by Wikipedia. I believe this provides a solid argument as to why the page should not be deleted from wikipedia. Admittedly however, it can definitely do with some tweaking which I will be tending to shortly. Jaxon--JJ 03:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding those independent reviews, which can be used as source material for a neutral article. I withdraw my nomination. Pan Dan 13:00, 13 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.