Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Garner - Wikipedia

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. –Llama man 00:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Garner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable; self-written vanity article ENDelt260 20:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless reliable sources are provided substantiating a fact about him which meets WP:BIO. Presently, this is a resume, albeit with some material which if verified and expanded could potentially meet a WP:BIO criterion. A look at Google doesn't help greatly because there are many false positives for identically named individuals. I find violations of WP:COI distasteful, but once posted, the article has to be considered on the merits.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course he's notable Physicist now a biophysicist, professor at a major medical center., Named chair, large research group, about 40 peer-reviewed papers in the last 5 years, most in major international journals.

Unfortunately, his web site is written as if it were a commercial organization, and is very hard to take seriously from the home page--He has titled it "Garnering Innovation"--but it is different when one looks inside. This is written as a vanity article, so it is confusing until you get to the actual scientific work, but we are judging the notability of the subject. I wikified that article a little. I remind people that an official university web page is a RS for the academic work, but I even found 2 news items about his work. DGG 08:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 07:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete, the problem here is not the notability of the subject but the failure of the article to show that, if somebody adds sources and references I am willing to review it again before the end of the AfD Alf photoman 14:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with sources fixed by DGG notability is demonstrated Alf photoman 13:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 06:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Named chair, unusual double career in high energy physics and biomedical engineering, founder of multiple companies. I completely fail to see what Alf photoman means about the failure of the article to show notability. Of course he's notable. At least Alf didn't just copy and paste his standard delete comment this time. —David Eppstein 06:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, my problem is not that I dispute the notability of Prof. Garner but that the article fails to show references and cite sources. It does not matter what I know now, or what you know now, but what people can learn 25 years down the line from Wikipedia. Without sources and proper referencing the articles are completely worthless after the references just catch dust in some archive Alf photoman 17:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So it's not so much notability but verifiability that you have a problem with, right? I agree that proper sourcing is necessary. I'm less convinced that deleting articles is the way to achieve it. —David Eppstein 18:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment on sources It may not have been evident because of a typo, but that has been fixed and the article now demonstrates two separate mentions of his inventions in Science , on the notable computer products section--they are editorial reviews, not ads. the rest of the documentation is his articles, as listed in the website, which is the acceptable place for them. (I had trouble with this, too, till I saw those two Science reviews) DGG 05:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:N and is verifiable. John Vandenberg 02:34, 18 February 2007 (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.