Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall James Bayer
- 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 - and AUTO does not get an automatic delete.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Originally speedied (not by me) and contested, but appears to assert notability (100 papers published), so I'm moving it here. My vote is weak delete, doesn't appear any more notable than many other botanists (weak because I'm not an expert in this field); also created by User:Rjbayer, so violates WP:Vanity. NawlinWiki 13:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has a lot of publications Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=%22RJ Bayer%22&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=some&as_subj=bio&hl=en&lr=&safe=off. Seems to meet WP:PROF. Dlyons493 Talk 17:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - even if he is notable, the entire article is a huge WP:AUTO violation. If he is not notable, then it is WP:VAIN. So either way, it gets deleted. If he's notable (possible WP:PROF as noted above), then without prejudice against recreation (but not by User:Rjbayer). — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 17:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Auto is a guideline not a policy, and it itself does not *forbid* creating articles about yourself. For his notability see List of publications on an independent Gov AU site Wjhonson 18:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable. I added the publications list cited by Wjhonson to the article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't add long lists of journal publications, all productive sceintists produce tens or hundreds of papers.--Peta 01:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The long list of articles is necessary to establish notability as some people assumed he was not. When this deletion is closed, then I would have no problem removing or limiting them to say ten of the best articles. Wjhonson 03:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't add long lists of journal publications, all productive sceintists produce tens or hundreds of papers.--Peta 01:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A Google Scholar search for Randall Bayer comes up with 69 references may of which appear to have been cited by other botanists see [1] Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears notable. Stilgar135 04:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Despite the creation by the subject, it appears fine. --Alf melmac 12:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Good initiative. Berton 14:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are many other botanists as notable (including a number of his co-authors) who would never consider creating their own Wikipedia articles, and thus will never be included. Part of being notable is having it occur to someone that they should create an article about you.--Curtis Clark 21:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - passes the Prof bit of WP:BIO with flying colours. Peripitus (Talk) 07:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep appears to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics), but having to make your own article is not usually a good marker of notability. The JPStalk to me 10:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep impressively NPOV autobio about a notable botanist. Our academic bio articles would be in much better shape if more academics made similar contributions.--Peta 01:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Aye, there's the rub. Most academics of similar or greater stature take WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO, and WP:BIO seriously and would never write articles about themselves, either through embarassment or for fear that it would affect their reputations negatively. If Randy's autobio stands, it will certainly serve as a precedent, though, and maybe additional notable academics can be persuaded to write articles about themselves.--Curtis Clark 03:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really think most people are even aware of the policies of wikipedia. I would guess not.--Peta 03:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Aye, there's the rub. Most academics of similar or greater stature take WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO, and WP:BIO seriously and would never write articles about themselves, either through embarassment or for fear that it would affect their reputations negatively. If Randy's autobio stands, it will certainly serve as a precedent, though, and maybe additional notable academics can be persuaded to write articles about themselves.--Curtis Clark 03:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Capitalistroadster and Petaholmes, article satisfies our Wikipedia:Notability (academics) guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 00:51, 24 August 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.