Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas P. Caruso


 * 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. The consensus below is that the subject lacks the coverage in independent, reliable sources to justify an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thomas P. Caruso

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This fellow has done a lot, but I'm not sure it meets the criteria of WP:BIO. It just looks like the life story of a regular guy who got his Ph.D., wrote some articles, and worked for a living. (I'm not saying it's not impressive, just that it doesn't meet the specific criteria.) All of the references are to his works, but not any third-party analysis establishing notability. ... disco spinster   talk  14:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, maybe it doesn't meet the specific criteria of "notable". However, his works are peer-reviewed, and one is in Science which has a notable requirement for publication, so this is, through the acceptance in the article, particularly notable. Furthermore, he won a Bacaner Award from the Mayo Foundation of the University of Minnesota Medical School for his PhD thesis work. The question comes down to what is really "notable"? Who makes the decision about what is notable? I've seen some fairly insignificant people listed in Wikipedia who played some role in a particular scientific discovery which was considered notable. Is the purification of the opiate receptor considered notable? Are the hundreds of citations of his papers considered notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcaruso2 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this could go in some biographical location? Is that Wikibiographies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.159.254 (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: According to Alternative outlets, there is WikiBios and BiographIcon (although neither are affiliated with Wikipedia). However, I would suggest waiting until the present discussion has run its course, because consensus could be towards keeping this article.  ...  disco spinster   talk  14:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment First of all, it needs to be pointed out that the article's creator and the article's subject appear to be the same person, in which case, I draw his attention to WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI.
 * Regarding notability, the requirement is for the person to be the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. In other words, the person must have made a widely recognised contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. This is not evident in either Google or Google News. In fact a google search for "Thomas P. Caruso" + Business Ambitions reveals only 2 or 3 pages of results, most of which are either false-positives or are unreliable sources.
 * Reference was made to a Baconer Award. This may satisfy the additional criterion that the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. However, this requires us to ask two things: is the award significant, and is that claim for notability sufficient to carry the whole article. As the article currently stands, the bulk of it seems to describe the subject's busness career and the aforementioned award isn't mentioned anywhere.
 * A claim for notability should be that which forms the opening sentence or paragraph, for which the rest of the article acts as support. The opening sentence currently refers to the subject as an entrepreneur, pharmacologist, biomedical informaticist, research program developer, software project manager, and management consultant. It therefore needs to be established that the subject is notable in each of these fields. The material currently available suggests the subject's research may be worth mentioning on a specific article relevant to the field. However, considered independently of such research and, more importantly, considered as a BLP, this article seems to fail the criteria for notability. I won't vote Delete yet, though, until someone familiar with Google Scholar can check up on whether the subject fulfils WP:ACADEMIC.
 * Incidentally, for the article creator's reference, the decision about what is notable is made by the Wikipedia community precisely for occasions such as this where notability is in question. Also, I must emphasise the importance of WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI, mentioned above. Few Wikipedians are lenient as regards conflict of interest and may question your reasons for creating an autobiography. Just a friendly FYI. LordVetinari (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — -- Cirt (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete Notability not established in article. Appears to be autpbiography. Only three of the listed refs are not written by the subject. Of those three, at least two don't directly mention the subject and only indirectly support the article. LordVetinari (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable CV in paragraph form. Often I take some exception to nominations starting with some variant on "He's just another... ", but this time, it's a reasonable comment.   DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 13 June 2011 (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.