- 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 17:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable •Jim62sch• 22:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I've taken a swack at adding content, but Wegman is at best marginally notable for our purposes here and what should be a bio is not a bio at all, but a irresistable POV magnet for pushing the message the anti-Global Warming crowd. FeloniousMonk 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Content is awful (irrelevant). Subject appears patently notable (relevant). Google search reveals 266 unique hits for a math professor (not sure there aren't some false positives), but a study of the links found is serious stuff. 137 Google Scholar hits [1]. Multiple books on amazon by him and apparently mentioning him [2]. I wasn't able to find an actual article, but a google search of ""Edward Wegman" "New York Times"" indicates many mentions in New York Times Articles.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep He's a very well-known Statistician. Of the order of 100 hits on Google Scholar. I've even heard of him myself! Dlyons493 Talk 23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Being used purely as a vehicle for POV. — Dunc|☺ 09:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Suspect nominated as a means of censoring Wegman's views. It's against NPOV to remove well-referenced information "on the grounds that the information advances a point of view." Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. --Uncle Ed 18:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are free to suspect anything you want, but the guy simply is not notable. By the way, "liberal "pro-global warming theory" point of view" -- why not be a bit more blatant about your point of view? What next, the "liberal" theory of the big bang? the "liberal" idea that HIV causes AIDS? Bottom line here Ed -- your comment was out of line. •Jim62sch• 11:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The info in this article is important. Perhaps it should be at Wegman Committee, cast as the recommendations of the committee rather than as a "bio" article. Is there a "keep and move" option? I hesitate to move it while the afd vote is going on, but the relevance of the info is the challenge to the liberal "pro-global warming theory" point of view. I'd like to see Wikipedia avoid championing the liberal POV; opposing POVs should be mentioned, too. --Uncle Ed 18:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable, verifiable as demonstrated above. I won't wade into the POV history; I just note that even if it is currnetly POV that is not a rationale for deletion, it must be irredeemably POV to have an article on the subject for that to be grounds for deletion, and I believe that that test can never be met for a biographical article. GRBerry 02:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.