Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renford Reese

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. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renford Reese

This a very detailed article on an American university professor who who sounds thoroughly worthy, but also does not appear to be notable. (The article appears to fail both WP:BIO and WP:PROF).

There are plenty of references in the article, but they are all to primary sources: to Reese's own homepages, to his Colourful Flags program, to his own publications, and to a UN program with which he may have been involved.

The result is a very detailed article which does not at this stage offer any means of verification other than to sources which are closely linked to the author: for example, there is a lot of biographical detail, but no indication anywhere that anyone other than Renford Reese himself has verified any of it.

Apart from some minor edits, the article has been written by two editors: Crcolorfulnails (talk · contribs), who has no contributions to any page other than this article; and by Mr4sh0wz (talk · contribs), all of whose contributions are either to this page or to related pages. Given the amount of unverified biographical detail, I am concerned that there may be a COI here, and that the article may even be an autobiography.

The work in which Reese is engaged sounds thoroughly worthy, but worthiness is not the same as notability, and at this point Reese appear to be one of the world's many decent and worthy socially-involved academics whose work has not yet achieved sufficient attention to meet our notability thresholds. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the week since this article was created I've been waiting for the notable achievement or contribution of this individual to be added to this article that establishes his notability. Unfortunately nothing has been added that indicates the required standard for inclusion of an academic under WP:PROF. If evidence could be found I'd quite willingly change my opinion but as it stands its just another academic, albeit an interesting one. - Galloglass 20:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am less concerned about notability than about autobiography and the ensuing POV. The content has been provided by four editors, Mr4sh0wz (talk · contribs), Crcolorfulnails (talk · contribs), Noblescholar (talk · contribs), and 71.105.215.64 (talk · contribs). At the time I wrote this, all but the first have edited this article alone (the first also uploaded images related to the article and added the article as a notable faculty to California State Polytechnic University, Pomona). The article contains unreferenced statements that, if true, and truly unreferenced, could only be supplied by the subject of the article. So it seems clear that it is an autobiography, and, almost in its entirety, violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two more sockpuppets have appeared: Baileydog7 (talk · contribs) and Rubesj (talk · contribs). Mr4shOwz has started to reference the article, which addresses WP:NOR, but WP:NPOV and WP:COI are still issues. No editor who (1) had an edit history prior to the creation of this article, and (2) has edited any other article has added information to this one. I find it interesting, too, that none of these editors has ever directly addressed any of the issues raised either here or on the various talk pages.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to say delete at this point. I took a pretty good look for third party sources and couldn't come up with much. Some coverage in Pomona periodicals, but that is not independent enough for me. A passing (negative) mention in some right wing blog is all that I dig up and that wont cut it. Considering the high level of single purpose accounts editing the article, conflict of interest and autobiography issues are a big problem, unless multiple quality third party references are provided I think deletion is the only option. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have read all four books by Dr. Reese, and was inspired to learn more about this man. I am a fan of his, and article of Wikipedia are usually started by fans of the subject/persons. Google or yahoo search his name and you will see more than the small handful of Pomona references I used or the few right wings blogs. Type in his names and there are thousands of hits. Renford Reese is not a typical name thus the many pages that shows up on Google and yahoo demonstrate his notability. I understand that Wikipedia is concern with reputable references thus if you use “scholarly” search engine such as Proquest, JSTOR, Lexus Nexus, etc. you will see the many links on him, thus notable. By simply searching his name in the many search engines and going pass the third or fourth pages on yahoo or google, it is clear there are tons of information about his life and works. Furthermore, if you go to the WorldCat website you will see that his first book is a classic because it is found in hundred and hundreds of libraries world wide. I am new to the Wikipedia community and this article on Renford Reese is a work in progress like most of Wikipedia articles, so please do not rush to judge and condemn. Rushing to judge and condemn to delete any articles/information will only deprived the people who are seeking knowledge.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.233.223 (talk • contribs) I really appreciate the community’s’ concerns or suggestions; and I will try my best to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia and Renford Reese. I have added many new references from LA Times, CNN and other third party sources. Nevertheless, after researching about this man, I strongly believe that he is a notable man and thousand would agree with me thus if this article is delete today, sooner or later some else will create another article on Renford Reese. Reading testimonies, which I did not mentioned in the Wikipedia article to maintain the neutrality, found on ratemyprofessor.com website, you will see that Reese is one of the favorite professors at Cal Poly Pomona. Thank you again for all you help- Mr4sh0wz.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr4sh0wz (talk • contribs)

Please see my response on your talk page.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to change my vote to a keep, but it doesn't look like any of the references you have provided establish notability, neither the LA Times article that can be viewed nor the CNN piece that is linked mention Mr. Reese. Establishing notability is simple, a multiple reputable sources that are not affiliated with the subject must have written about him in some detail. Once those are provided then the deletion debate will end, but things like ratemyprofessor or the number of google hits don't change anything. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: My intentions was to create this article on Renford Reese to inform the world about this man so that they can too be inspired by his work and to go out and make a positive differences in our society. This is a man who is not only a beloved professor at the university he works at, but an internationally renowned author and lecturer. I tried following the suggestions of the Wikipedia community as best as possible. As a new user of Wikipedia, I never thought the complexity of the Wikipedia community would actually hinder the integrity of Renford Reese. Furthermore, being a new user I wish there would of been more help from the community rather qucik condemnation to delete. Though, I do not agree with notability issue since adult actors can be found on Wikipedia but with the pressure of community to delete this article, I am going to delete this article within 24 hours. It is ironic and contradictory to see that pornography prevailed over academia in this community. The issue of notability is just like the issue of beauty that is “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” The recently added referneces are numerous, valid and accordingly. This article on Renford Reese, has more respectful references than on many other biographies in Wikipedia's database that community deemed notable. I strongly believe that if any person were to take half the amount of time I took to learn about Reese, they would agree that this man is notable whether they agree with his work or not. Again, as I said before I strongly believe that after my deletion of this article, sooner or later someone else would create another article on this notable man, Renford Reese. Thank you all for your help and opinions.

DELETE; First, I am confused at the authors' use of citations labeled, "<ref>12</ref>". Secondly, the sock and/or meatpuppet issue, the COI issue, and the autobiographical issue concerns me. There is, however, minor notability claims within the athletic accomplishments of the subject. Notable references are at a premium. Unless the author(s) can show notable, verifiable third-party citations, I must say delete. (The article does look pretty, however).--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:IAR. It appears a very well written article. Even though it may not be notable, it's still a decent article. What's the harm in keeping it around? Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 00:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:IAR again. If we allow all "pretty-but-false" articles to exist then it deminishes the respectability of this encyclopedia. So to keep it "just because" is a very poor reason indeed.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:28, 22 April 2008 (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.