Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Muilenburg


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Tony Muilenburg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not pass WP:PROF or WP:N guidelines. The subject is an adjunct professor with no notable achievements inside or outside of academics. The assertion of significance through the video tutorials appears moot as the tutorials are self published. ERK talk 21:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I think WP:Prof should be okay. The idea was to help with the WikiProject Universities effort, and in fact, we would like to list multiple professors like other universities do.

The education hardware professor Muilenburg developed is being used at both OSU and PSU, and the material he teaches at PSU is unique and highly valued. Also, he has tens of thousands of hits on youtube for the video tutorials. I added a few more references that were not self published. Muilenta (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for the useful feedback as I'm new to posting.


 * Weak Keep. According to his faculty page, he's an adjunct professor not professor. There's a difference. But more important, that shows that he's  he;s a senior engineer at Intel. That's his main career; his work at PSU is, as the title says, an adjunct to that.  (even if the inexperienced editor didn;t realize it or mention it in the article). It's very difficult to judge such careers, and I'd be inclined to give the article the benefit of the doubt, because we do recognize contributions to educational programs as part of WP:PROF.     DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment It appears the article's creator is the subject or closely related. Another editor pointed out the WP:COI on the creator's talk page. While his main career is as a senior engineer at Intel, I don't believe that's enough to satisfy criteria #7 of WP:PROF, as there's nothing to suggest his position at Intel carries any notability. I can't find anything that comes close to satisfying any of the other criteria. -- ERK talk 05:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the article quite a bit. I looked at pages of some other professors, and modeled after those. Thanks again for the constructive feedback Muilenta (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF (in particular, no significant citations found on Google scholar, for work in a high-citation subject) and the article's sources do not provide evidence for passing WP:GNG. Only references 6-8 (Oregonian, Nanoelectronics, and Rhizome) look both reliable and sufficiently independent of the subject, and none of those provides the in-depth coverage requested by GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Appears to have no publications (nothing shows on G-scholar), nor does he seem to have furthered an area of research. Being a senior engineer at Intel isn't one of the criteria - it's a job title that probably many hold. LaMona (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2016 (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.