Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Bradford (professor) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 23:21Z 

William Bradford (professor)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Based on comments on the first AfD discussion (closed due to sockpuppetry) and the talk page (author supports deletion), I am renominating this article for deletion. It seems NN per WP:BIO and a tad on the attack side. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC) *Delete per author and salt if necessary. This is completely unencyclopaedic, doesn't garner much notability, and smacks of agenda pushing. Not to mention the author requested deletion. /Blaxthos 20:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless further indication of notability outside of the IU-Law-Indy community or the hard-right media should appear. Edeans 03:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I opposed deletion the first time around, and still do. As far as it being an attack page, unfortunately he made his own mess, that's not the fault of editors. There are some things I could add to the article, guess I'd better get to it. -- Groggy Dice T | C 03:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully we can have a clear, clean, sockpuppet-free consensus this time around :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep He is notable, and the references are good. I think the article is somewhat biased, however. Negative things are overemphasized.-MsHyde 04:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not sure why this is encyclopedic; isolated faculty incident, recentism applies. --Vsion 06:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable due to well-publicized controversy. Realkyhick 08:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep.Per Realkyhick. --Wehwalt 18:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Follow up - I've cleaned up the article, including removing all the dead references. To all those who vote keep, I ask you to try and verify any of the claims in the article.  I have no prior knowledge of this professor or the scandal surrounding him, but based on what the article contains now I can't find any verification.  Noteable or not, we have to be able to make sure it's true.  /Blaxthos 20:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep & source after John's addition of a few sources, this appears both notable and verifiable. More sources are needed, but I think that's just a matter of effort.  /Blaxthos 17:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.  -- Pete.Hurd 23:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Since I have commented on several recent AfDs of academics, and this may be a confusing issue: I have no connection to the "David Epstein" who wrote the "web of lies" article referenced by this article. Certainly Bradford seems non-notable from an academic point of view but the part of the article that leaves me undecided about his notability as a whole is the "frequent commentator in local and national media" paragraph. A shorter article that emphasises that part and mentions but does not go on at such length about his academic career would seem an improvement. —David Eppstein 23:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep probably  notable as a professor, since I did succeed in documenting the PhD thesis and  at least 13  law review articles-- this is a  respectable N publication record in   law, being more than one per year, regardless of anything else.   But certainly seems notable as a fraud.   We need someway of mentioning that this has become the subject in many conservative blogs or the sort we do not use for sources, because the use they are making of this case is part of the notability DGG 00:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepThough I'd like to see better references for the text, the notability is established with the current sources. --Kevin Murray 03:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (general comment) I see everyone addressing WP:N... what about the problem with WP:V? /Blaxthos 05:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a few more citations for the controversy, but I think we also need to verify his expertise, as the journal articles I found were not well cited. John Vandenberg 16:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I don't perceive the giant problems with WP:V that you do. It's unfortunate that the Indystar link you removed has gone dead, but it's still available from archive.org, and even if it wasn't, the key information is still confirmed in the "Web of Lies" article. On the most damaging point, the alleged embellishing of his military record, the WP:V sourcing is solid. -- Groggy Dice T | C 19:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Several sources have been added since I raised that concern (enough so that I changed my vote from delete to keep). However, keep in mind that this is an overwhelmingly negative article (though I think it's appropriate), and there are some serious WP:V considerations when posting negative or damaging information in a WP:BLP.  I just want to make sure that every claim that is made is solid -- this guy is a lawyer, if nothing else).  /Blaxthos 22:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, the article has seen some significant improvement. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Controversial but notable. Biophys 23:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Biophys. Aye-Aye 23:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 08:02, 11 February 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.