Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian H. Cameron (2nd nomination)

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. While I truly and sincerely applaud the forthright honesty of the editors who openly declared their COI, ultimately, that fact that there is a COI casts a shadow over their arguments. I am sure that they acted in good faith, but it is extraordinarily difficult to be truly objective about a person who you know personally. Looking over the contributors to this AfD, I only see a single person arguing to keep who does not have a COI. That is telling. If the subject of this article really is noteworthy, then eventually somebody who has no personal relationship with him will come along and write the article. And if that new article gets proposed for deletion, then people who have no relation to him will argue to keep the article, based on its merits. While I understand where the requests to salt the title are coming from, I'm not doing to do that; when a truly unbiased editor, with no COI, comes along and wants to recreate this article, they should be free to do so (providing, of course, the new article meets guidelines). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian H. Cameron

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little that is substantively different from the article that was deleted in AfD #1 a little over 2 months ago. A lot of added puffery this time around, many links to "about us" type of pages, a review board to note the subject's membership, an industry forum, and so on. This is now a very long and very detailed C.V. When actual reliable sources take note of this person, then we'll have an article. This is a textbook example of squeezing blood form a stone, to use the Wikipedia to advertise one's client. We have a rather apparent conflict of interest here, as one of the refs (that at first appears promising but is just to a blogger write-up) is to an interview with both the article subject and the article's primary contributor, "User:User:Nickmalik". Once again, the project is being gamed for self-promotion. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, User:Tarc has not read the updated article. Gartner articles are reliable sources (a fact that I verified with the discussion on reliable sources last month). Two Gartner articles detailing the value of Dr. Cameron's program, plus an A&G article detailing the importance of the FEAPO paper to the profession, are being simply discounted in your discussion. Add in the references from books and we have clearly crossed the threshold. I ask that you withdraw the spurious charge that Wikipedia is being "gamed." I am simply a new editor and have been learning on the job. Nickmalik (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article, and the sources you cite are not in-depth coverage of the person, only programs and related matters. As for "gaming", this all began a few months ago with a press release (since deleted from the website) from Penn St. crowing about the Wikipedia page's adding to the subject's notoriety. That's not a function of an encyclopedia, which is supposed to reflect what is already out there. This project is not another arm of your blog, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I was as upset at that press release as you were. I certainly had nothing to do with it. For other editors, that press release was issued by Penn State University and stated that Dr. Cameron's recognition was growing as evidenced by an article appearing on him in Wikipedia. The article did NOT say that Wikipedia was adding to the Dr. Cameron's recognition. Even so, it was inappropriate and it has been withdrawn. I believe it was a lapse in judgment on the part of a staffer at the University. That said, it has little to do with whether or not Dr. Cameron is notable. Is this the thrust of your concern... not whether he is actually notable, but whether the project is being manipulated? Because outside press about Wikipedia is not supposed to influence what goes on inside Wikipedia. Deleting an article because someone wrote about its existence would be a terrible precedent, don't you think? Nickmalik (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how Cameron is notable, and this article seems like a resume with some narrative added. --Kbabej (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

could you be a little more specific? Do you feel the sources are not sufficient? Do you feel that they are not reliable? With respect, simply stating that "you don't see" is a case of WP:JNN. Nickmalik (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User:nickmalik here. The conflict of interest has been declared on the talk page. I openly and freely admit that I know Dr. Cameron. As a person who has had a huge amount of impact on the field of Enterprise Architecture, it is VERY difficult to find a significant person in the field of EA who does NOT know Dr. Cameron. However, there is no conflict in terms of incentives. There is no "client" relationship. He is a colleague that I respect. I have not now, and will never be, paid or incented or otherwise influenced to create an article that is outside the highest standards of Wikipedia.

As for "little changing since the first deletion," I maintain that the first deletion was in error as well. Dr. Cameron is notable. The first article failed to do a good job of describing his notability. As for the charge of puffery, 100% of the claims made in the article are truthful and backed up with cited 22 sources, most of which are not self referential. The reason for adding the list of boards and bodies that he is a member of, comes from the notability guideline for professors WP:PROF that indicates that membership of this sort is considered to be a contributing factor in establishing notability, as are prestigious presentations at national conferences (listed in the Ongoing Contributions section of the article).

The charge that the opening reference is self referential is flat out false. Most of the details of the LEDE came from two seperate articles by Scott Bittler of Gartner.

Realize that Dr. Cameron is an academic, and therefore notability of academics applies. WP:PROF defines an academic as someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement. That said, Dr. Cameron doesn't fit neatly into the typical academic boundary. Most professors learn a field and then teach it, frequently in the same university. Dr. Cameron learned a new field, and then CREATED the department of the university to teach it. He is the Executive Director of the research center that studies that field and helps to develop it. The WP:PROF criteria says that this person has to be more notable than the average professor. Clearly these accomplishment alone meets that criteria.

WP:PROF also asks us to consider if he has had impact outside of academia, but only lists books as the way to do it. I charge that creating an international organization of organizations dedicated to create this new field, and to be recognized for it by invitations to present at prestigious conferences as the featured or keynote speaker, is sufficient to meet that criteria.

Part of the problem is the way that Wikipedia asks us to count things... number of citations... number of articles... number of boards... to create an easy metric. There is no easy metric here. As a new field, there are only a few journals that spend any time at all on Enterprise Architecture. The most established is "Architecture and Governance" which is a commercial magazine that has been continuously published for many years. That A&G thought to dedicate an entire article to Dr. Cameron and his accomplishments, immediately followed by the publication that he championed, the first international consensus on the field of Enterprise Architecture, should be sufficient... but that doesn't fit in typical Wikipedia guidelines because it will take another decade before other universities follow suit to create their own EA programs.

Dr. Cameron is notable in the field of Enterprise Architecture, which has precious few notables. Nickmalik (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt for a year. No improvement over last time. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

No improvement? The list of references has gone from a handful to 22. This is after REMOVING all but one of the references that were interviews by the media. Combining both academic and non-academic impact, the new article does a much better job of describing his existing notability. Nickmalik (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the wikipuffery there seems to be little meat here. There is no evidence that the subject passes WP:PROF, creating a degree program (the centerpiece of the article) is not a particularly unusual activity for an academic, and the level of sourcing for this activity also does not convince me of a pass for WP:GNG for it. Given the quick re-creation of a previously deleted article, salt might be appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject did not simply create a degree program. He created a program in a field where no other university in the United States had an existing degree program. Take this test: look at your own alma mater. Find a SINGLE degree program at that university that was offered there, first, before being offered anywhere else in the United States. Then find the person who created that program. I bet you won't get to the last part of that challenge, but MOST universities cannot claim to have created the first degree program of its kind... ever. Exceptions for some ivy league and large research universities. What university was the first in the US to offer a degree in Economics? Can you name it? Probably not. Was it important? Very much so. What the man or woman behind that shift notable? Not to you, perhaps, but to the people who would take that degree, in ANY university, very much so. Nickmalik (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or ~~Speedy Keep~~--When I have reviewed the submission, I did had a look on the past Afd. This time, the article is indeed much improved and its useless to go for an Afd. The herald 12:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why the speed? Xxanthippe (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Going from "terribly sourced" to perhaps "weakly sourced" may be an improvement in a technical sense, but it isn't quite enough. All that was added was a hefty dose of prose and a reach for every faint name-drop in every trade publication the subject's friend could find. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question: why the speed? Is someone being injured here? Every one of your objections from last time has been addressed, with citations to WELL ESTABLISHED reliable sources (unless you want to start challenging that Gartner is not a reliable source). The Gartner articles are not name drops. They are ABOUT the subject. Nickmalik (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the article can then be trimmed that going for an AfD. WP:NODEADLINE..The herald 15:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No, you don't do this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. What do you not do? Challenge a mistake? Nickmalik (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't recreate articles on unnotable subjects because you personally know the subject. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Please note that I did not create the first article, and I went through the process of AfC to create the second. In both cases, other editors created the article.

I recognize and openly share the fact that I know the subject. On the other hand, the fact that I know the person does not mean that he is not notable. That argument is absurd. Most people who are near the top of their field know someone who is notable, either in their field or another field. We know notable people BECAUSE they are notable.

I know Dr. Cameron. I have not taken a class from him or any other class at his University. Neither myself nor my employer have any relationship with him, his college, or his Center for EA... certainly nothing financial. To be honest, I WP:DGAF. I am not concerned with whether or not he has a page. I am a little unhappy that a mistake made by a junior staffer at his university has triggered a series of events that has nothing to do with his notability. That's petty, and Wikipedia is not about being petty. It's about informing people and providing neutral and trustworthy information, free of promotion or bias (to the greatest extent possible). Deleting a page from a notable person as punishment for something that they had no say over... that's something we should definitely not do. Nickmalik (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim - I know Dr. Cameron a bit and I do believe that his contributions to the industry and notable and worthy of a Wikipedia page. That said, the current description is a bit "puffy" and could be tightened up. My real question is are there objective guidelines or tests that Wikipedia uses to determine if an individual is notable enough to warrent a page? Maybe I should have a page? We might need a voting process for certain unnusual situtations, but for the vast majority of individual there should be an objective list of criteria that should be used to qualify an individual or organization for a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschmidt163 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are criteria. See WP:NOTE, WP:PROF and WP:GNG Nickmalik (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC) (updated)[reply]

I find it difficult to put much weight into a call to keep by a) someone personally connected to the subject, and b) professes no knowledge of the notability criteria of this project. That amounts to an WP:ILIKEIT entry. Tarc (talk)

I agree Nickmalik (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add to the conversation. Xxanthippe gave a fairly spare answer that amounted to saying "just not notable" with no supporting rationale. Please exceed his contribution by stating why. Did you check the sources? Do you find them sufficient? If not, why not? Nickmalik (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The keep arguments, at least the most sensible of them that I can see here, seem to suggest that Wikipedia should recognize, more or less, an inherent notability to the creation of a new degree type. There is no argument presented here that the sources actually meet our usual bars, and the experienced and uninvolved editors in this discussion appear to agree, so ... let's turn to that inherent notability claim.

That is an interesting claim, and I will take a moment out of my usual role of adjudicating these sorts of discussions to instead add my own view--which is that that would be a poor thing for Wikipedia to do.

I do think there's a place for inherent notability criteria, such as those we use to good effect for certain types of politicians and award winners, where an objective bar gives such a strong presumption that there will actually be good sources about the topic that we can skip the process of actually looking.

I don't think that creating a new type of degree program, even an important one, reaches that bar. I can see where it might seem to, but I think that as an objective test, it's pretty weak--we don't have any inclusion of questions of the importance of the topic (maybe the degree was a good idea or a bad one), or the significance of that particular department topic, or necessarily a clear idea of how much or how little that individual played the role of creator of that department. It's a bad test, it would be bad precedent, and one we shouldn't set here, no matter what the result.

There are certainly other cases of academics who have created new types of departments in academic settings for whom we don't consider that achievement signficant. Just to pick one, our biography on Carver Mead does not mention his creation of the first degree program covering Computation and Neural Systems (although the latter (which may have a few problems itself) does mention the former.

I am not suggesting that we should not have an article on Mead! Mead's notability is, as is the case for most biographical subjects, evidenced by reference to multiple, independent, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of the topic. And that should remain the standard here, no matter the outcome of this particular discussion with respect to Cameron. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This entire discussion is a False Dilemma. The criteria for inclusion of a person in Wikipedia is NOT limited to situations where the article is "evidenced by reference to multiple, independent, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of the topic." Please take the time to consider the ACTUAL guidelines, especially WP:PROF which applies to academics. There are literally THOUSANDS of biographies in Wikipedia of academics whose WORK is the only thing cited, not the person, and that work is evidenced by reference to Google Scholar AS AN EXAMPLE.

The test is already included in Wikipedia, and it is not a bad test. The test, in WP:PROF, is clearly stated as such: "The criteria above are sometimes summed up in an "Average Professor Test". Put simply: when judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?"

The subject of this article clearly exceeds this bar. Nickmalik (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, in practice you can spot people who are going to pass WP:PROF by how frequently their work is discussed in other notable sources, and h-index is generally used as the proxy for that. Which is what? Their work being discussed in secondary, reliable sources. APT is rarely invoked, because applying comes down to providing evidence that someone surpasses it. The problem with your argument is that you claim the degree program creation is a major work, and yet, we don't have the sort of evidence we would require for WP:PROF in any other circumstances to show us, in an unbiased manner, just how big a deal that is. And so the argument fails for me. And the failure of the claim is only reinforced by the fact that the first other figure I came up with who shares a parallel accomplishment, well, Wikipedia considers that accomplishment so minor it's not even mentioned in the article on him. Hardly compelling stuff. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So here's the thing. If Dr. Cameron writes a paper (he did) and it is cited over 50 times (it has been), that doesn't mean that the person citing the source is actually using his material. That alone means that he reaches your usual notability bar.

But citation only means that they have referred to a paper, not understood it or leveraged it. (I'm assuming you've read academic papers. I've written academic papers. Citing a source means very little outside "tipping the hat" to your peer). On the other hand, the sources that I cite do not just mention something that Dr. Cameron has written. They are writing directly and primarily about things that Dr. Cameron is **doing** and let's realize that doing is as important or more important than referencing. The authors of the papers I cite had to be intimately aware of Dr. Cameron's work in order to write those papers (all three of the papers cited fall into this criteria). The citation of three detailed papers that discuss the work of Dr. Cameron well and truly exceeds the value of 50 or even 500 citations of a paper that defines a term that has not been defined before. So, yes, he met the usual bar.

In addition, you mention a very small degree program at a single university. I get that. I graduated from a small degree program at my own university. But what the subject has created is not something that will stand alone. There are already competing programs in other universities (Kent State has an EA program as does one of the California universities, each derived independently. PSU was the first, not the only). In addition, one of those sources lists a number of other universities around the world that are developing or have developed EA programs, including ones in the Netherlands, the UK, and Australia.

Your comparison to the esteemed Dr. Mead is not valid, because Dr. Mead appears to have graduated 110 Ph.D. students in 20+ years. That's about four or five a year. Dr. Cameron's program will graduate undergraduate, graduate, and Ph.D. students at about ten times that rate. Therefore, in the grand scheme of things, Dr. Mead's many accomplishments should NOT include the degree program because he is doing it personally. Dr. Cameron's accomplishment is institutional, systematic, and scalable. They are not the same. Dr. Cameron's is clearly greater and will have greater impact simply by counting the number of people who are involved and will graduate. Of course, that's not part of WP:PROF. This is a unique case.

Last statement: you started with "in practice you can spot people who are going to pass WP:PROF by how frequently their work is discussed in other notable sources". True... **some** of the people who will pass WP:PROF can be spotted that way, but WP:PROF specifically excludes professors who have produced citable papers as their only accomplishment. Not all people can be spotted here. I'm asking you to follow the actual guidelines, not the easy out that you may have followed in the past. Nickmalik (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2014 (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.