Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew A. Michta

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. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew A. Michta

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

A piece of pure puffery largely written by single purpose accounts with obvious connections to the subject. In fact one of them openly discussed being assigned by the subject to improve his WP biography. (see the article's talk page) Most of the sources have a close connection to the subject. Reading this it is hard to even know what this guy does as it would have us believe he is directing an office in Warsaw, a professor at a college in Tennessee, and a "senior scholar" in Washington D.C. all at the same time. Seems like the article is a desperate attempt to claim notability and get some free publicity to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Neutral. A GS h-index of 9, perhaps not quite up to levels expected in a well cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I should like to add that I dissociate myself from the tone of some of the comments made on this page. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:PROF. The sources are a grab-bag of primary sludge and bloggy onanism. Together, they wouldn't constitute enough of a WP:RESUME to win him a temporary adjunct gig in a trailer-classroom planted behind the main buildings of the local community college. Qworty (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Couple points:

Michta is the M.W. Buckman Distinguished Professor of International Studies at Rhodes College.[1] According to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) #5: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research". We can discuss if Rhodes College is a major institution, Forbes rated Rhodes 47th among all American colleges.

Michta was a Fulbright Research Scholar 2000-2001. "The Fulbright Program is one of the most prestigious awards programs worldwide". According to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) #2: "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." UPDATE: unable to confirm on the (primary source) Fulbright list [2] Perhaps he was working in a capacity related to a Fulbright grant but not a direct grantee.

I found a BBC quote that called him a "well-known expert".[3]

The US Embassy in Poland lists him as "An American expert in Poland".[4]

There is other stuff in his resume[5] that points to meeting notability guidelines that needs more research. Obviously everything needs secondary sources which has not been done yet, thus I'm not making a vote yet. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per distinguished professor title at a significant institution (the other citations from Green Cardamom help in establishing notability as well. The DP title though is enough on its own. Without the DP, the FRS + Full Prof. + BBC quote together would be enough for me). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodes College doesn't qualify as a "major institution." It is a small school in Memphis, with only 1800 students, and ZERO graduate students, that changed its name to Rhodes College only in 1984. Frankly, if Michta is supposedly so notable, it's hard to see why he can't get a better teaching job than that. Qworty (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The enrollment size, home state or name of a school are unrelated (for example prestigious Amherst College is a small liberal arts undergrad with 1800 students). Forbes rated Rhodes 47th among all American colleges and universities in its 2010 publication of America's Best Colleges.[6] U.S. News and World Report consistently ranks Rhodes among the nation's "top-tier" liberal arts colleges, ranking the school 47th among liberal arts colleges in 2010.[7] By comparison this would put the college in the top 5% or so of all American colleges (in 2010). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at your links [8] [9] before you put them up? The words "Rhodes College" don't even appear there! Qworty (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right I didn't look just copied from the article. They appear to be 2009 stats (Forbes rank #62). The 2010 stats for Forbes[10] (rank #47) and US News [11] (rank #54). No reason to focus on 2010 (other than they ranked highly that year), the point being it regularly ranks highly among American colleges. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: From the Rhodes College site, "Andrew A. Michta is the M. W. Buckman Distinguished Professor of International Studies at Rhodes College, a Senior Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and a Senior Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States." I'd say that passes WP:PROF. So Rhodes College isn't Oxford. Big deal. It's fully accredited. Besides, Michta clearly has more to show than that. Faustus37 (talk) 07:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Distinguished Professor is clear. The guideline for "Major" institution is completely subjective, so I apply a common sense interpretation that to be "Major" means to be "Not Obscure". Since we're talking about academics and not sports coaches, the determination should be made on its academic record, not whether you've heard about them on ESPN. That's the whole point of having a separate notability criteria for academics anyway. Given its coverage in Forbes and elsewhere, I call Rhodes a "Major" institution academically, so the criteria is met. Celtechm (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2012 (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.