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. WjBscribe 18:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Sanchez[edit]

Joe Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I previously prod'ed this page. The prod was remove because the original author said that the subject was properly referenced. As far as I can see these are all links to the subjects own papers presented during conferneces. Ergo it's not establishing the notability of the subject, but the "potential" (i don't know the rep of the conferences) notability of his work. Are these kinds of external sources significant enough to warrant an article ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the refs are from the University Texas itself btw. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Joe Sanchez is listed on the Second Life wiki page as a researcher, so this page added to the credibility of another wiki page. He is published in several academic peer-reviewed journals and was listed in outside news sources for SXSW and The Austin Forum named him an emerging leader. Fits wikis biography and notability guidelines. Just added the page yesterday, it is still a new page. I am adding an external links section now. Brentwood

The page lists five Secondary sources and I just added several external links, he shows up in Google scholar six times. Brentwood

In my eyes his work is better suited as a source for the article Second Life, rather than that the person itself is notable enough for an entry in Wikipedia. I'm not questioning his work, i'm questioning the fact that that work makes him a notable subject (and no matter how much work this page sees, i doubt it will ever achieve that). We simply don't have entries for all published researchers in the world. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Sanchez meets the WP:PROF criteria for academia Brentwood 00:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Brentwood[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 01:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the subject is a PhD student, the lead section sentence stating that "Joe Sanchez is cited in peer-reviewed academic journals." is supported by a link to a pdf, whose title page includes the descriptor "A Research Study Submitted for Presentation at The Academy of Business & Administrative Sciences Conference, Cancun, Mexico, June 22-24, 2002", so I have no idea which peer reviewed journal this is supposed to be. A grad student with a couple of publications, and a single citation falls far below the bar of WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd 01:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Student, not yet notable. The article is written in a breathless style which attempts to make even the most standard grad-student accomplishments seem important, but I see nothing here that would pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein 02:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject is in the top one-percent of his field. Only 1.25% of Instructors in Higher Education are hispanic. In the entire nation, only 3% of graduate (PhD) students are hispanic. He is published in peer-reviewed academic journals, and the first to publish on the use of Second Life in Education. Certainly qualifies as more than "even the most standard grad-student accomplishment." http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61 Brentwood 04:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Brentwood[reply]

  Note, this is Users' 2nd !vote, and further, may qualify as a SPA. Pete.Hurd 13:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Note, I have signed every post signifying I am the creator of the page and am not a SPA. but do believe the top 1% of field is a valid argument for notability WP:PROF.I have added the data to the page.thanks! Brentwood 16:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Brentwood [reply]

  While AfD is not a vote, users are expected to cast only one !vote (e.g. keep, delete, merge). You should feel free to add as much discussion of the rationale behind your opinion as you feel is required to explain your view, but cast only one keep !vote. This is what I meant by "Users' 2nd !vote" above. Pete.Hurd 18:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as indicated on it's Talk page, the logs also show that this is a recreation of a previously deleted article. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as evident from the talk page comments, the page was deleted without notification to the author (against wiki etiquette) so I had to recreate the entire thing. The comments on the talk page sound like they are from another grad student wiki page Sarah Robbins who may have an interest in making Joe Sanchez's page is unavailable for fear of scholarly competition. Brentwood 23:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Brentwood[reply]

  Ummm, so you are suggesting that Sarah Robbins, or her agents, are attempting to undermine your career by having your Wikipedia page deleted, so you had to recreate it after it was deleted? Can an admin check the deleted version to see if this is CSD G4? 68.148.40.121 05:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm no admin, but A7 seems a lot more likely (in which case undeleting and going to an AfD is quite legitimate). If it were G4, there would already be an Articles for deletion/Joe Sanchez, but clearly there wasn't because it was created for this AfD. —David Eppstein 05:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete During early April this page was deleted after I added several comments about improvements. It is not a new page as Brentwood says. None of the improvements were made and the page does not meet biography template or academic notability. I believe the user Brentwood is Joe Sanchez and also the anonymous IP 24.155.108.14 making this a vanity page also. Typewriter 23:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I marked the page for deletion and after the required time limit when nothing was changed it was deleted. If Sanchez has notability it should be easy to fix the page. There is room enough for all notable academics on Wikipedia. The article is not a bio, does not have NPOV and does not meet academic notability requirements. If changed to do so, the page should remain. Requests were made in the ast and went unheeded. I have no interest in scholarly competition but wikipedia advancement and quality. Typewriter 23:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• BIAS? There are considerable concerns about a potential bias of User:Typewriter. User seems closely related to, or in fact is, Sarah Robbins whom is apparently active in the same area as Joe Sanchez. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 00:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• reply TheDJ - If the improvements are made to the page I have no problem with it staying. I am not Sarah Robbins but Mark Bell. I do maintain her page. If the requess for change I have made are incorrect please let me know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Typewriter (talk • contribs) 00:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. Nice try at beefing up notability, but clearly he isn't (yet), per David Eppstein. --kingboyk 01:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Robbins. --kingboyk 01:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is very well known for his SL research and everyone is blogging about him... he should keep the page up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.209.15 (talk • contribs)

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.