Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Carl Rustici


 * 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 without prejudice against recreation if additional claims to notability arise, such as being published in peer-reviewed academic journals or winning more significant awards &mdash; Caknuck (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Carl Rustici

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

After having tried to improve this article, I have come to conclusion that it completely fails WP:PROF. In particular: a) the initial claim that he has authored a text book used by 700,000 students is misleading. He wrote a few study guides for an educational video by John Stossel featuring colleague Walter E. Williams. This does not represent a significant academic work b) he has received no substantial secondary coverage, even the Salon piece is a fleeting reference c) no major awards d) the Virginia Institute should be considered a primary rather than secondary source, with a biography that reads like it was supplied by Rustici. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a borderline case but the fact that his stuff has been read by 173,000 students I think makes him notable. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that you feel that way. (In fact, you may be short-shrifting yourself, I think I came across articles suggesting that the number of students who may have viewed the John Stossel video series is much higher). My point is that this is not the same as being a person who "has published a significant and well-known academic work" or whose "collective body of work is significant and well-known" or "is known for originating an important new concept", per WP:PROF. He was simply hired to co-write a few study guides for Stossel's video series, featuring, as the Salon piece points out, his boss. The XXX,000 students aren't reading "his stuff," they're watching Stossel's video. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WEW isn't, so far as I know, TCR's boss. And the 700,000 study guides presumably get some use by the teachers and professors who order (& budget for?) them. As I recall, writing a widely used textbook is a specific example at WP:PROF, and this is close enough that I see no reason to increase entropy by dismissing it as a vanity entry. The server space isn't expensive. Andyvphil (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Just makes it IMHO. Sensiblekid (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. According to his department's web site he is an "instructor" not a professor. So his notability seems to rest on his teaching accomplishments, always a long shot. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I think he is mostly renowned for his lectures, which have made him a mini-celebrity on campus. He is always looking for the student who will be the next Madison, but it remains to be seen whether he will find him. One thing people seem to be agreed on is that he's very influential on his students. Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * http://ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=16612
 * http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4050
 * http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/archives/2004_11_28_default.htm
 * http://jimbovard.com/blog/2007/07/18/deliberative-democracy-dementia/
 * http://pccapitalist.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-is-public-choice.html
 * http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/03/where_are_the_e.html
 * delete writing study guides isn't going to pass WP:PROF, I'd be more swayed by an affiliation with the Cato Institute, if there were any. I don't see enough here to put him near WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. The awards are decidedly minor and oversold. "Inducted in the Who's Who" indeed.... --Crusio (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Minicelebrities on a single campus are a good example  of the meaning of "non-notable." 05:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Participation with "Stossel in the Classroom", publication by Cato, etc., CapMag article... seems someone might want to know who he is, and there's just a bit for the article to pull together. Note the examples in WP:PROF of WP:BIO justification. I don't see how Wikipedia is improved by the deletion of this material. Andyvphil (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. A few study guides does not meet the bar for inclusion as an author, and his other achievements, while laudable, are not encyclopedic. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:PROF: "An academic who has published...a widely used textbook, or non-academic articles in periodicals with significant readership is likely to be notable as an author (see WP:BIO), regardless of their(sic?) academic achievements." 700,000 is pretty wide use. Andyvphil (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Vanispamcruftisement ... beau coup trivial mention citations, but still fails Notability (academics), IMHO. &mdash; 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. May be a borderline case but fails WP:PROF, as detailed by proposer.--Boson (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although I'm tempted to put in a sentimental keep because this man was a great teacher of mine, I think we can all agree his achievements aren't encyclopedic. ZG (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2008 (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.