Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Dodge

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kallath (talk | contribs) at 11:03, 13 May 2009 (→Michael Dodge). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Michael Dodge

Michael Dodge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Designing your own degree program does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (namely those pertaining to 'significant coverage' and 'sources'). Temporary, insubstantial news coverage; second source is a school newspaper; second source is a dead link. Article has received similar criticisms over the past year (see page's discussion and history). Author denies and speedily deletes edits. Kallath (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep He didn't design the degree program, the University of Mississippi did. He is the first person in the United States to receive a space law certificate. In other words, he's the first space lawyer in the United States. That alone is enough for his notability. Additionally, the second link you said is "dead" isn't dead. The whole University of Mississippi olemiss.edu domain is down right now. I assure you the University hasn't just went out of business and closed up shop, including their whole web domain. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 09:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd also encourage everyone to listen to this MP3 audio production Discovery Now found at WRHO TV/WHRV Radio here. It's written and produced by the National Institute of Aerospace and distributed by WHRV 89.5 radio. Discovery Now is a daily 90 second program that features highlights in aeronautics and astronautics technology, science, history, innovations, research, and inventions from the aerospace industry, worldwide. This particular 90 second program is about Michael Dodge and his being the first space lawyer in the U.S. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 10:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed. He didn't design the program. He is the first person to graduate from it. There are other students in the program. An article in The Daily Mississippian online, here, talks about another student in the program as well as the second U.S. program started this year at the U. of Nebraska. As for notability, the sheer number of space-related and law-related websites which picked up either the school paper article or the space.com article meets the standard for notability. I'm not sure what started the rancor against this guy, but I think the article should stand as is. Age Happens (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My apologies for framing the issue incorrectly, but what has he done in the field of 'space law' beyond graduate with a certificate in it? The notability of Michael Dodge relies on the mere novelty of 'space law', not on the significance of the person himself or his accomplishments. You say he's a "space lawyer." Has he worked on space law cases? Does he work for some sort firm dealing with space law? Can you say anything significant at all beyond the fact that he has a space law certificate (assuming that's even significant--as opposed to merely interesting--in the first place)? Apparently not, because the rest of the space is just filled with impertinent biographical information (like what he did his undergraduate studies in, which might be interesting if he were important) and references to the institutions related to space law (which are far more noteworthy than the person himself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kallath (talk • contribs) 09:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding his coverage on G4tv, etc., the mere mention does not warrant a wiki article. G4tv mentions a lot of people who do crazy, stupid, or geeky things, and that does not make them noteworthy. A biographical article should be qualified with information relating to the person's accomplishments, activities, etc. I believe you're both mistaking novelty for notability. Kallath (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, your nomination is counted as your "delete" !vote. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 10:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be your contention, then, that Neil Armstrong's page should be removed simply because his notability relies upon his being the first human to step foot on the moon and others did so after? Or maybe the nearly as small page for Gaston de Chasseloup-Laubat should be marked for deletion simply because his only notability was setting the first recognized automobile land speed record and people now drive all the time? I can find hundreds more, if you like. Wikipedia is full of pages dedicated to people who have been the "first" to do something. Many of them notable for only doing so. Michael Dodge is the first person to get a degree in space law. That's enough reason for multiple unbiased sources to make note of the event. You many not think it's notable. But you aren't the final arbiter. The fact that space.com one of the most respecte donline sites dedicated to space found him notable is enough to meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia by itself. Add to that the fact that law sites, other space-related sites, ev en G4tv.com (for a popular culture site reference) found his graduation of enough note to mention it. I'm sorry, but your standard of notability seems to be much more stringent than that of Wikipedia or for any number of outside, reliable and most importantly unbiased sites such as - G4TV.com, Space.com, IO9.com, universetoday.com, minnlawyer.com (he's not even from Minnesota!), marssociety.org, canesinternational (U. of Miami International Studies Journal) and more. That's enough for me. It goes way above and beyond the Wikipedia standard for notability, not your own standard perhaps; but that isn't at issue, is it? Age Happens (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that I'm not the final arbiter. That is why I created this discussion page in the first place. As for being the first, you seem to be supporting my argument. The point is that getting the first space law certificate isn't comparable in importance to the first person walking on the moon. The significance of being the first depends crucially on the significance of the accomplishment, not on the novelty of simply being the first. By your logic, anyone who is the first at anything deserves to have a wiki page. But no, we discriminate between important firsts and those which are not. You're providing evidence as to why this particular first is significant, which measures Michael Dodge against all others who are the first to have done something. We measure their accomlpishments. So far we know he has a certificate in space law. Mention something else beyond the sources which have pointed out this one accomplishment. The significance of a space law certificate depends on the significance of space law, which is covered in the space law page. In my opinion, this is also where any mention of Michael Dodge should be confined. Kallath (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If anything, it is the certificate itself that is notable, not the person, see WP:ONEEVENT. There are a few non-bloggy references (http://www.canesinternational.org/?p=591) but they are trivial in mentioning his name, I see nothing that meets WP:RS that discusses Mr. Dodge outside of earning the certificate. He's not the first "space lawyer", merely the first person to have a certificate in it from a school. Also, has this claim actually been verified? How do we know there are no similar certificates issued in China, for instance? That's why reliable resources that research and fact-check are so important. Something else to ponder: if all of his classmates had received the same certificate instead of a certificate in criminal law, would they be equally notable? Drawn Some (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you've missed the sources in the article and the ones provided above that do a whole lot more than "trivial mentioning". OH yeah, most of them also call him the "very first space lawyer", not "the very first certificate earner". - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 15:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tell that to these guys: International Institute of Space Law, also read this: Space law. This guy got the first certificate, maybe. Drawn Some (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even think the certificate itself deserves its own wiki page. The certificate is offered through the National Center for Remote Sensing, Air and Space Law. Allstarecho already made an entry in that article for Michael Dodge, and if he wishes to add a detailed section about the space law certificate, this would be the appropriate place. But as you can see, not even some of the faculty have their own wiki pages. What about the pioneers who made the space certificate program? How is Michael Dodge, who graduated just a year ago, at all more noteworthy than the individuals who have the expertise to teach space law? The very fact that there's a curriculum for space law indicates that there are already people working in it, and so saying Michael Dodge is the very first "space lawyer" just seems like a kitschy way of attracting readers (which would explain why most sites making this claim are blogs, etc.) There are already a number of international space treaties, national laws, institutes, and agencies dealing with space law. To say we've only just received our first bona fide space lawyer is completely arbitrary if people have already been working in the field since 1967. Michael Dodge has benefited from people working in this field. He is a product of pioneering individuals; he is not one himself. Kallath (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point. I agree that he deserves a mention in that article as is. Drawn Some (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Yes, the certificate is offered through the National Center for Remote Sensing, Air and Space Law, which is part of the University of Mississippi School of Law, not some seperate entity. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 16:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply otherwise, but either way, I fail to see how that has any bearing on the discussion. Kallath (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I fail to see how being the first ever space lawyer in the world United States still means you're not notable. But I digress. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 16:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apparently McGill has been offering such a certificate for some time: [1]. This guy is just the first person in the U.S. to get one because this is the first certificate offered in the U.S. I'm not even sure he's mentionable in the article on the National Center for Remote Sensing, Air and Space Law. This is starting to look purely promotional. He's not the "first space lawyer in the world", he's not even the first person to be certified as such in North America, and no doubt some of the McGill certificate holders are practicing law in the U.S. and around the world. Drawn Some (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt that all of those sources, including Space.com and the University of Mississippi, would be calling him the "first", if he wasn't.. but stranger things have happened I guess. And how do you know McGill has been offering it for "some time"? It doesn't say on there when it began. All it does is list courses.. and doesn't say anything really about a certificate in space law being what you get upon completion. They could be courses just simply offered as electives. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 16:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Space.com reference is specifically what made me look for the other North American program. If you can't be bothered to search the McGill page I linked to for the word certificate then see page 8 of this brochure: [2] which I link to because it shows how McGill-educated space lawyers are practicing in 120 countries around the world and how long they have been educating space lawyers. Drawn Some (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes perfect sense that the University of Mississippi would want to lay claim to the "very first space lawyer ever," as you put it. It's a promotional tool. But the Daily Mississippean linked in the page says of space law that "...one program exists in each of Holland, Germany, Canada and Lapland." Only Space.com's eye-catching headline says he's the first space lawyer, which it then clarifies as "[receiving] the first-ever space law certificate in the United States." The other "article" cited on the page is actually just a tiny blurb that's cached from the Deccan Herald, a paper in Banagalore, India. The fact that multiple sources say he's the "first ever" is not evidence that he is; it's evidence that it's a good headline. Kallath (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you listen to the radio program I linked above? I seriously doubt the National Institute of Aerospace would also call him the "first space lawyer in the United States" if it weren't true. At any rate, I'm done defending the article now. His notability is so painfully obvious but I'm just one voice among millions. Carry on. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 17:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see we've gone from "first ever space lawyer in the world" to "first ever space lawyer in the world United States." There are two issues brought up in this discussion: the first establishes that space law has existed for over 40 years, and that applying the term 'space lawyer' to someone who's only just received a certificate seems arbitrary. What about the educators, professionals, etc. that went into making space law programs (not to mention space laws)? The second issue is whether he's notable at all for being the first in the United States. Are you just as readily going to make pages for the first graduates of space law programs in every other country? The fact that you continued on the assumption that he was the very first space lawyer ever, and only just corrected yourself, underlies the problem. Michael Dodge isn't as notable as you thought he was. He's no more or less notable than any other 'first graduate' of space law programs, none of whom have Wikipedia pages. Even if he were the first to receive such a certificate in the world, that still leaves open the issue of whether he's truly the first space lawyer given 40 years of preexisting practice pertaining to space law (which contributed to his getting a certificate in the first place). Kallath (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the part where I said I'm done defending the article now? And the part where I said his notability is so painfully obvious? Seriously, I'm done defending it. I won't post here anymore. I've said all I can say about it and presented the sources verifying his notability. There's nothing else I have to add. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 17:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm continuing to argue against the claim that his "notability is so painfully obvious." Simply because you've chosen to leave the discussion doesn't mean other users won't or shouldn't continue to invalidate your claims, question your evidence, and so on. I and others are providing a rationale for this page's deletion. You're free to stop discussing whenever you want. Kallath (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, his degree concentration is not novel, McGill has had such a program for over fifty years. Drawn Some (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Apparently it's time to start marking all the other Wiki articles of even less notable persons for deletion. One wonders on which side of the issue some individuals will come down then? Since the criteria being used in this case seems to be considerably stricter than the actual rules for notability and far stricter than many of those pages can possibly support, many articles should disappear. Assuming, of course, the above contentions have honest reasons. Age Happens (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you find it appropriate to create articles for each and every "first graduate" of space law programs from every country that preceded the United States in offering them? We have established, beyond any doubt, that the United States is not the first country to have a space law program, and that Michael Dodge is most definitely not the first person in the world to graduate from one. He is, so far as we know, the first with a certificate in the United States. If you're extending things to their logical extremes re: the dubious notability of other articles and how we, by our logic, should flag them as well, then you should also extend the same logic to those subjects without articles which deserve them under Wiki guidelines. I recommend you create an article for all the first graduates of space law programs. Just because they haven't received the same fanfare as Michael Dodge doesn't mean they're not equally notable (or non-notable); in fact, at least one is even more notable, because he or she must have been the very first to receive a space law "degree" in the world. Right? The point is, the coverage on the internet (which consists mostly of tech/geek blogs in this case) is not proof positive of someone's notability, nor does it establish any absolute facts that would entitle someone to say "Doubting this article's notability is absurd!" The evidence provided in favor of this article is awful by journalistic standards (I'll refer you again to the tiny blurb that's cached--cached--from a newspaper in Bangalore, India). The evidence was also mined among the hundreds of others for the kitschy headline "First space lawyer ever!!!" Most articles did not even make this claim, but the author proceeded on the assumption that it was true before retracting that claim just yesterday. With all that being said, being the first to have a certificate in space law in the United States is most certainly not notable. The space law program is more notable; it's faculty and researchers are more notable; the other programs across the world are more notable; the various professionals who, over the last 40 years, have worked on space law for government and international bodies, agencies, and other institutions are more notable. And yet, remarkably, none have articles on Wikipedia. Michael Dodge merely graduated, just like every other graduate from space law programs who preceded him. He has not accomplished anything notable. The specious media coverage, the spotty source mining, and the inability of anyone to adequately respond to the most simple logical arguments against this article make it an obvious candidate for deletion. Kallath (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using the logic used above, lots of articles are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Apparently this idea of "known only for one event" is the overriding factor, trumping all of the other portions of the biography rules. "First person to", "youngest person to", "oldest person to" etc. are all then subject to that same logic if that is the only thing for which that person is known. It won't matter if the event is documented, because the Michael Dodge article was documented. You might recall that your original objection was lack of documentation. That changed as documentation was provided. The goal posts kept moving until we finally arrived at this ridiculous idea that if the person is known only for one event, regardless of the significance of that event as judged by reliable outside sources, then the standard for biographical pages has not been met. That's fine. If that is the prevailing opinion, then I'll accept it. But it had better apply to 'all' such articles or this entire discussion was nothing more than an exercise in hypocrisy. Age Happens (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"as judged by reliable outside sources" In fact, this is precisely the claim that others have been arguing against. Some of the sources are not reliable at all, and if you had read my post, you'd see a prime example of that. See also the discussion about headlining, promotion, etc. These issues have already been addressed--let's not beat a dead horse. As for notability (once again), the mere presence of coverage (whether reliable or not) does not make someone notable according to Wiki guidelines. Even on its face, being the first to receive a certificate in the US in space law seems to most in this discussion bizarre when labeled as any sort of notable accomplishment. The very point of this deletion discussion is to prove to you and the author that the notability of this individual is very much in question even when it seems wholly self-evident to you because you've read some eye-catching headlines from some prominent websites. Kallath (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Frankly I just don't consider this significant. Being the first graduate of a particular specialization in a law school is not really notable--his career afterwards may be, but teat remains to be seen. It's not even that he;s the first recipient of a innovative degree--he received the same JD as everyone else, and the certificate gives no unique privileges. Even as a program, we have consistently held such Non-degree certificates in a course as not significant. We wouldn't make an article for it, and we certainly shouldn't for him for receiving it. DGG (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only did he receive the same degree with a special space law certificate, he's not even the first person to have a specialization in space law. Kallath (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ridiculous article. If the space law program is interesting, maybe an article on that would work, but lots of people graduate with degrees all the time, and this person did absolutely nada of any importance for any encyclopedic coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll say it again. "But it had better apply to all such articles or this entire discussion was nothing more than an exercise in hypocrisy." Blatant hypocrisy. We have an article on Bertha Benz, whose only accomplishment was supposedly being the first person to drive an automobile a long distance. That's it. Drive a long distance? Is that any kind of official record? It's folksy and rather unimportant. It certainly meets the standard of an encyclopedia article less than the above article does. The article has one reference and 3 external links, one of which leads to a site about her husband. If anything that article deserves no more than a section under her husband's article at Karl Benz. And yet, one of the editors above thinks it is "a significant accomplishment" and adequately sourced. Just one reference is adequately sourced? Really? Blatant hypocrisy. Merge the Bertha Benz article or keep the one on Michael Dodge or admit to blatant hypocrisy or at best a very unevenly applied standard of notability. What about Grandma Gatewood? Her sole claim to fame is being the first person to walk the Appalachian Trail solo in one season. So? People walk all the time. People walk the Appalachian Trail all the time. Her only claim to fame is being first. Most of the references are to geneaological sites and one is to a tourism association! A tourism association is a reliable source? Again, blatant hypocrisy. Apply the standards in the above comments all the time or don't apply them at all. Otherwise, all you have left is personal opinion about what is or isn't significant. First space law certificate in the U.S. - fully documented as being the first, uncontested as such - versus silliness like the Bertha Benz article. Prove me wrong. Delete all articles which don't meet your standards above or delete none. Don't cherry pick. And ask yourselves whether Wikipedia should be in the business of getting smaller or larger. Inclusion or exclusion. Most of you seem to be adopting exclusion for Michael Dodge and then not apply the very same standards to similar articles. Bad practice. Age Happens (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hypocrisy implies that I believe those other articles shouldn't be flagged. As a matter of fact, I think they're apt candidates for deletion. There's no hypocrisy involved here. The fact that we (or I) can't practically go about flagging all these articles is not a justification for not weeding any of them out. That's like saying that because we can't practically go about incarcerating every criminal, we should stop altogether. This is hardly a matter of blatant hypocrisy. This is a matter of consistency. If, by my argument, I should go about flagging all those articles (constrained only by my practical inability to do so), then you should go about creating articles for all first graduates of space certificate programs (because, to you, they're all notable!). But that's nonsense. Just because I've flagged one article, or because someone has created one article, doesn't generate any mandate to flag or create all articles. That is not what logical consistency demands--it doesn't demand anything at all. The reasons for this article's deletion are firmly established. If I had the time, I would (upon review) flag any other articles I found appropriate for deletion. From what you've said, those other articles certainly don't meet Wiki guidelines. The fact that many slip through the cracks is not a rationale to keep the crack open. What a bizarre argument... Kallath (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Dodge&oldid=289649048"