535:, this is a forum for discussing article deletion. Editors on this forum are asked to weigh whether or not an article should remain on WP. That means editors community wide. In looking at the article in the state it was in, which at the time was nothing more than his name and educational background, I felt there was nothing to warrant an article. If you'd bothered to actually read what I wrote in my delete comment, you'd see that I said if he'd distinguished himself in his academic field that would be a reason to keep. I do not have the esoteric knowledge you claim to have, nor apparently does the article, and I don't see anyone here who supports keeping the article, improving it to show that. The only laughable comment is yours. If you can't participate here without resorting to childish personal attacks to make your point, then perhaps you should find another project.
565:
required to have a priori knowledge of academic accolades to understand
Michael Casey's BLP. WP isn't an online 'Who's Who in Academia' website. It is not unreasonable to ask that this fellow have some general notability beyond where he went to school and where he teaches now. The article in question doesn't convey anything that leads the reader to believe this person is anything more than a fellow who got a good education. His academic stardom is not stated in the article. His Google scholar profile means nothing to the average reader. Should that be included in article? "Michael Casey has a high Google scholar profile," (add citation). It will still not convey who this person is and what makes him stand out that he should have a WP article. I should think this is precisely why the article has been nominated for deletion.
394:
which will be reliably published and by people independent of Casey. Only a small fraction of them are likely to cover his work in significant detail, but a small fraction of 2352 can still be a nontrivial number of in-depth reliable sources. If you believe that WP:PROF #C1 and/or #C5 are the wrong criteria by which to measure academics, argue it on the talk page of that guideline, but in this case #C5 especially is very clear-cut and I think #C1 is almost as clear. —
514:-- WP:PROF#C5 and C1. Michael Casey is one of the biggest stars of the world of computational musical analysis; he is extremely well known to anyone working on digital audio research, computer-based compositions, etc. SW3's notion that he hasn't distinguished himself in his field is laughable. Almost no one in music research is at the level of Casey; that's why he has an endowed chair at Dartmouth. --
564:
Yes, thank you for your informative comment. I do happen to know what being given an academic chair means, especially what it means at
Dartmouth as I graduated from there a while back. I can fully understand why the article was nominated for deletion. This is an encyclopedia. The reader shouldn't be
579:
I don't think it would be much of an improvement to state "he has a high Google scholar profile" or "is one of the biggest stars of the world of computational musical analysis" in the article. What would be more helpful would be to state the general areas of his research and what his most important
393:
Not everyone's publications get much impact. That is why criterion #C1 is about the citations to the publications, not about how many publications there are. In this case, Google scholar is listing 2352 sources that are in some way about Casey's work (other academic papers that cite his), most of
549:
If you prefer not to go by subject-specific knowledge (a reasonable preference) then you should go by the documented evidence of the respect given to the subject by his peers. In this case, the named chair is such evidence. Such things are given (especially at Ivy League schools) only to highly
342:
is meant to be used as one aspect, not the sole criteria. If he were known for writing a best-selling book, or winning a famous academic prize, that would be a reason to keep because he's distinguished himself in his field. But he's not.
170:
550:
distinguished academics. He has been noted, by people who (MSCuthbert excepted) understand his accomplishments better than we do; therefore he is notable. That's why C5 is listed as one of the criteria in WP:PROF. —
242:
282:
612:
No, the problem is that we have too many reliable sources (as I stated above, some 2352 of them) so we need an editor who is knowledgeable enough to sift through them and pick out the important parts. —
440:, "multiple publications with over 100 citations each" (four in Casey's case). Is that policy, and if so set where? Just asking as there is a fair bit of ambiguity across AfD cases on this.
222:
164:
456:
Yes, especially given that there is nothing in the article that lets the casual reader know this person is distinguished for anything other than his education and job position.
123:
262:
130:
96:
91:
100:
83:
358:
That is an incorrect reading of WP:PROF. Passing *any one criterion* of WP:PROF is passing the whole thing. But since you brought up the subject:
185:
152:
17:
445:
594:
You're absolutely right, adding those bits wouldn't be an improvement, but adding what he does would be. That simply requires
146:
53:
201:
I created this article in 2009 when I was still fairly new to WP. In retrospect I am not convinced
Professor Casey passes
87:
142:
708:
680:
649:
635:
621:
607:
589:
574:
559:
544:
523:
500:
479:
465:
449:
441:
430:
403:
388:
371:
353:
318:
294:
274:
254:
234:
214:
65:
730:
40:
580:
accomplishments in those areas have been. But doing that right probably requires an editor with similar expertise. —
192:
210:
61:
645:
617:
585:
555:
491:, Sorry, I didn't see your comment there when I restored the comments you'd deleted, so it wasn't intentional.
475:
399:
367:
314:
79:
71:
359:
676:
158:
726:
470:
It's a judgement call. Different fields have different citation patterns. There is no mechanical rule. —
36:
704:
519:
426:
206:
57:
641:
613:
581:
551:
471:
437:
395:
363:
333:
310:
178:
672:
362:
shows multiple publications with over 100 citations each, enough to pass criterion #C1 as well. —
631:
626:
Yes, it will take that. I meant RS 'in the article,' at this time to show what he does, etc.
603:
570:
540:
496:
461:
384:
349:
290:
270:
250:
230:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
725:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
696:
418:
339:
306:
305:. Since the article creation he has been given a named chair at Dartmouth. That's enough for
202:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
338:
Fails notability. He's done nothing besides get an education and get a secure job for life.
700:
532:
515:
422:
595:
488:
627:
599:
566:
536:
492:
457:
380:
345:
286:
266:
246:
226:
117:
436:
Question: I would like to understand the basis for the criterion set by
336:. Reliable sources available to put in place to show notability .
719:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
243:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
283:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
113:
109:
105:
379:: Still not notable. Everybody in academia publishes.
177:
671:-- As holder of a named chair he should be notable.
598:, and so far there doesn't appear to be any of that.
223:
list of United
Kingdom-related deletion discussions
191:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
733:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
281:Note: This debate has been included in the
261:Note: This debate has been included in the
241:Note: This debate has been included in the
221:Note: This debate has been included in the
280:
263:list of Music-related deletion discussions
260:
240:
220:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
640:Oh, I see — I agree with that. —
1:
750:
691:A holder of a named chair
360:his Google scholar profile
709:23:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
681:18:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
650:00:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
636:22:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
622:21:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
608:21:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
590:21:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
575:19:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
560:18:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
545:13:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
524:11:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
501:18:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
480:16:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
466:17:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
450:10:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
431:00:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
404:20:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
389:19:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
372:17:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
354:16:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
319:15:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
295:14:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
275:14:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
255:14:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
235:14:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
215:08:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
205:. I welcome opionions...
66:01:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
722:Please do not modify it.
80:Michael Casey (academic)
72:Michael Casey (academic)
32:Please do not modify it.
442:Truth or consequences-2
533:Michael Scott Cuthbert
516:Michael Scott Cuthbert
48:The result was
522:
297:
277:
257:
237:
54:non-admin closure
741:
724:
518:
417:. Clear pass of
196:
195:
181:
133:
121:
103:
34:
749:
748:
744:
743:
742:
740:
739:
738:
737:
731:deletion review
720:
207:Flaming Ferrari
138:
129:
94:
78:
75:
58:DavidLeighEllis
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
747:
745:
736:
735:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
684:
683:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
642:David Eppstein
614:David Eppstein
582:David Eppstein
552:David Eppstein
526:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
489:David Eppstein
483:
482:
472:David Eppstein
453:
452:
438:David Eppstein
434:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
396:David Eppstein
364:David Eppstein
334:David Eppstein
321:
311:David Eppstein
299:
298:
278:
258:
238:
199:
198:
135:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
746:
734:
732:
728:
723:
717:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
682:
678:
674:
673:Peterkingiron
670:
667:
651:
647:
643:
639:
638:
637:
633:
629:
625:
624:
623:
619:
615:
611:
610:
609:
605:
601:
597:
593:
592:
591:
587:
583:
578:
577:
576:
572:
568:
563:
562:
561:
557:
553:
548:
547:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
527:
525:
521:
517:
513:
510:
509:
502:
498:
494:
490:
487:
486:
485:
484:
481:
477:
473:
469:
468:
467:
463:
459:
455:
454:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
413:
405:
401:
397:
392:
391:
390:
386:
382:
378:
375:
374:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
356:
355:
351:
347:
344:
341:
335:
331:
327:
326:
322:
320:
316:
312:
309:and for me. —
308:
304:
301:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
279:
276:
272:
268:
264:
259:
256:
252:
248:
244:
239:
236:
232:
228:
224:
219:
218:
217:
216:
212:
208:
204:
194:
190:
187:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
144:
141:
140:Find sources:
136:
132:
128:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
721:
718:
692:
668:
528:
511:
414:
376:
337:
329:
324:
323:
302:
200:
188:
182:
174:
167:
161:
155:
149:
139:
126:
49:
47:
31:
28:
695:notable by
512:Strong Keep
165:free images
701:Xxanthippe
697:WP:Prof#C5
423:Xxanthippe
340:WP:PROF#C5
307:WP:PROF#C5
727:talk page
287:• Gene93k
267:• Gene93k
247:• Gene93k
227:• Gene93k
37:talk page
729:or in a
124:View log
39:or in a
628:SW3 5DL
600:SW3 5DL
567:SW3 5DL
537:SW3 5DL
529:Comment
493:SW3 5DL
458:SW3 5DL
419:WP:Prof
381:SW3 5DL
377:Comment
346:SW3 5DL
203:WP:PROF
171:WP refs
159:scholar
97:protect
92:history
520:(talk)
325:Delete
143:Google
101:delete
596:WP:RS
186:JSTOR
147:books
131:Stats
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
705:talk
677:talk
669:Keep
646:talk
632:talk
618:talk
604:talk
586:talk
571:talk
556:talk
541:talk
497:talk
476:talk
462:talk
446:talk
427:talk
415:Keep
400:talk
385:talk
368:talk
350:talk
332:per
330:Keep
315:talk
303:Keep
291:talk
271:talk
251:talk
231:talk
211:talk
179:FENS
153:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
62:talk
50:keep
193:TWL
122:– (
52:. (
707:)
699:.
693:is
679:)
648:)
634:)
620:)
606:)
588:)
573:)
558:)
543:)
531::
499:)
478:)
464:)
448:)
429:)
421:.
402:)
387:)
370:)
352:)
328:.
317:)
293:)
285:.
273:)
265:.
253:)
245:.
233:)
225:.
213:)
173:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
64:)
56:)
711:.
703:(
675:(
644:(
630:(
616:(
602:(
584:(
569:(
554:(
539:(
495:(
474:(
460:(
444:(
433:.
425:(
398:(
383:(
366:(
348:(
313:(
289:(
269:(
249:(
229:(
209:(
197:)
189:·
183:·
175:·
168:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
145:(
137:(
134:)
127:·
120:)
82:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.