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. Arguments regarding notability according to WP:PROF based on publications proved persuasive. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiram Caton[edit]

Fails WP:PROF. Lack of independent, reliable, non-trivial sources establishing notability. A minor figure even within the fringe community of AIDS dissidents. MastCell 01:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No refs and too little info and actual relevance to make it notable.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 17:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 00:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Hiram Caton" gets 901 Google hits. With such a distinctive name, the vast bulk of these must be relevant to this particular person. The first few pages of hits certainly are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.172.124 (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Yes, but Google hits are not a criterion per WP:PROF. Without widespread recognition from independent academic sources in one's own field, which I've been unable to find, the notability criteria are not met. Also, as Hiram Caton apparently resides near Brisbane, and your IP maps to Brisbane, and your edits have been somewhat Hiram-Caton-related, please be sure you're not violating Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. MastCell 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I note that you're a physician, and since Caton's work (especially, though not exclusively, his AIDS-related work) frequently attacks the medical establishment, please be sure you're not violating Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.172.124 (talk • contribs).

Comment: Thanks - I took another look at WP:COI#What is a conflict of interest?, and it looks like I'm OK. The idea that anyone who works in medicine cannot edit any articles critical of the "medical establishment" is an overread of WP:COI. WP:NPOV exists just for such cases. MastCell 18:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Now, wherever did I say that "[no-one] who works in medicine cannot edit any articles critical of the 'medical establishment'"? I'm merely asking you whether you're capable of removing yourself sufficiently from your profession to maintain objectivity, as I'm sure that others no doubt can. Please have the courtesy not to put words into my mouth.

Perhaps you didn't look quite closely enough at WP:COI, which states that "there is no list of criteria to help editors determine what counts as a conflict of interest." Just because you didn't find a box to tick doesn't exonerate you. I find it very curious that when attempting to defend yourself, you take this very literalist approach, yet when presented with the solid proof that Caton's The Politics of Progress has been "the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources", and that in 1982-83 he "received a notable award or honor" (two boxes to tick against WP:PROF) you somehow appeal to a manufactured notion of "independent sources demonstrating notability", when WP:PROF calls for evidence of quite a different kind. Why the double standard? WP:PROF asks to be read literally, WP:COI specifically asks not to be read literally. Simply put, you've got it backwards.

Just as "if you are involved in a court case...you would find it very hard to demonstrate that what you wrote about another party to the case...was entirely objective" (WP:COI), so too some physicians would no doubt find it difficult to demonstrate that their motivation in calling for the deletion of an article about a man who's spent a sizable chunk of his professional career attacking their trade were entirely objective either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.172.124 (talk • contribs).

Comment: I'm not "defending" myself, I don't have a need to be "exonerated", and I don't feel like engaging in a back-and-forth with you. I've stated my opinion, and the reasoning for it - at this point it's up to the community. MastCell 22:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's incredibly disingenous of you to make assertions that there's no evidence for Caton's notability, citing WP:PROF, and then as soon as you're presented with exactly the evidence that you yourself have demanded, (a) you attempt to shift the goalposts of the discussion and (b) you're now going to take home your bat and ball rather than deal with the observation that that's what you've done. You've thrown around insinuations about others' COI based on "evidence" as flimsy as geography, yet cannot stomach the suggestion that you may have COI issues of your own here. Likewise, while at the same time as you're willing to put words into others' mouths, you attempt a lame linguistic slight-of-hand to avoid addressing the accusation of double-standards.

It really doesn't matter whether or not you accept my observation that you are defending youself. What does matter is that you now refuse to admit that once presented with evidence of notability under exactly the guideline you quoted, you instead appeal to some notion of notability of your own devising, not borne out in WP:PROF.

So, to clarify, there are really only two options here. Either you are asserting that The Politics of Progress has not been "the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews...in works meeting our standards for reliable sources" and that a National Humanities Fellowship is not "a notable award or honor" or you must concede that you are actually using some other standard of notability different from, and at odds with WP:PROF.

If it's the former, I'd be truly intrigued to see your reasoning. If it's the latter, as the nominator of this AfD, you really do owe it to the community to spell out what criteria for notability you're using, and why they should be favoured over WP:PROF, especially when you yourself have appealed to that very guideline. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.172.124 (talk • contribs).

Comment: Please be civil. You've said you know Caton and have worked with him to gather material for his article. One of the reasons WP:COI discourages editing on people with whom you have a personal relationship is that it's hard not to take things personally. You're taking this personally. It's not personal. Yes, I think the article should be deleted, and I spelled out my reasoning in the nomination at the top. If the consensus of the community is to keep it, well, at least the article was improved through the process. That's fine with me too. I'm assuming you're new to Wikipedia, so you may wish to review the policy on personal attacks. Specifically, please confine your comments to the issues at hand, and refrain from commenting on the editors involved as much as possible. MastCell 04:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm well aware of WP:CIVIL and have studiously avoided making any kind of personal attack on you, as tempting as it's occasionally been. You, on the other hand, apparently have no such compunctions; first insinuating, and now practically alleging a COI. You also seem to believe that no-one could disagree with you so vehemently unless they were "taking this personally". Frankly, I find that position more than a little condescending.

Yes, you spelled out your reasoning at the very top; but that reasoning was based on the article as it originally stood, with - I'll freely admit - no evidence presented that Caton met the WP:PROF guidelines for notability. However, that evidence has been there for a couple of days now, and you have not altered your position. Which, you'll forgive me for saying, does seem to indicate that you've shifted the goalposts from the time you invoked WP:PROF.

Being civil doesn't preclude pointing out inconsistencies in someone else's statements or position. Does it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.172.124 (talk • contribs).

To answer your question, being civil here involves avoiding comments that cause other editors to believe the mastodons have returned. MastCell doesnt need to change his position; he has indicated that he will accept the communities response; unless you have something to add to the evidence for this Afd, please concentrate on editing. John Vandenberg 05:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references now in place. Notability meets at least criteria 2 (The Politics of Progress) and 6 (National Humanities Fellowship) of WP:PROF. I am not Hiram Caton, although I do know him, and have requested his help in fleshing out the article today.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.172.124 (talk • contribs).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep He is a full professor at Griffith, a major university. Full professors at universities are generally N, because they have survived several rounds of faculty peer review,. But it its not a major re3search university we don't necessarily assume they have published much, but in his case he has written several academic books.The book was reviewed in more than 20 professional journals.so even if there were doubt, the books and the reviews would be enough by all possible standards of N. PROF is just a guideline, but he meets it. He is N among other fields than AIDS dissidence, such as Mead/Derrick. ::As the article says, he has written over 175 articles, mostly peer reviewed, and we accept official web sites for that.

All of the above are referenced in the article, sourced much more fully and competently than academic bios usually are. I cannot help wondering if it were not his positions of issues that was affecting the discussion here. Absurd positions do not make an academic less N--it could even be argued that they make him more so. I am not an australian, and I consider his position of AIDS not merely absurd, but dangerous. Doesn't make him less N, and the documentation holds up. Article does need to be trimmed a bit--it should quote his views instead of presenting them.DGG 05:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Strongly disagree that full professors are automatically notable, as does WP:PROF. I still don't see the independent sources demonstrating notability - the sources that have been added haven't been very impressive to me in that regard and have mentioned him fairly briefly - but I've said my 2¢ there already. MastCell 05:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:PROF requires that only one of the 6 criteria for notability be met. As for "independent sources demonstrating notability", you now have no fewer than 9 reviews of The Politics of Progress in peer-reviewed academic journals (you can verify all but one of these in JSTOR, if you care to). So, how does this still fail to meet WP:PROF 3.1 "The work must be the subject[1] of multiple, independent, non-trivial[2] reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources. "? Secondly, you now have independent verification (from the NHC itself) that Caton was indeed the receipient of a Fellowship there. WP:PROF 6 states "The person has received a notable award or honor". If you're not familiar with these fellowships, read our own article on the National Humanities Center to realise that the award of one is a Big Deal in humanities scholarship... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.172.124 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 24 February 2007

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that being a full Professor does not in general make you notable. However I think being a full Professor in Australia or UK does as it is a more restricted position than in the US and is more like the named or distinguished Professor in the US. Being a foundation Professor in a new university in Australia adds more to notability. BTW, Griffith University has a strong research focus although perhaps less so than the larger and older University of Queensland in Queensland. An earned D Litt requires extensive publications. It is awarded entirely on the basis of publications. He is quite clearly a notable professor. Let me add that I do not agree with him on AIDS and do not know him, but I do know the Australian academic system. --Bduke 23:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article needs work but he appears notable in terms of publications as a start. Some of the sources are not strong though. Paul foord 03:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Bduke. John Vandenberg 05:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Per Bduke, clearly passes wp:prof, internationally recognized. --Buridan 15:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, revised article shows notibility, and has verifiable data from reliable sources. --Bejnar 22:49, 25 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.