![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 August 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This page uses content from Shimer College Wiki, a project to better document Shimer College and its people. The original content was at Adam Kotsko and is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) license. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. |
Although I am not at liberty to remove the tag, this appears to be an entirely frivolous nomination, even by our steadily-decaying standards. How many fields would one have to be a published authority in to satisfy A7 by this interpretation? And A7 can scarcely trump the GNG in any case. -- Visviva ( talk) 00:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Just as a reminder, there are certain rules that needs to be followed. Don't break these rules. Jørgen88 ( talk) 10:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
So even though several users here are stubbornly trying to censor my edits, even at the talk page, I now represent several more sources building upon the professor.
Source: The Washington Times - "White college professor: All whites ‘complicit’ in slavery" [1]
Source: The Daily Caller - "White Professor Informs White People They Are All Currently ‘COMPLICIT IN’ Slavery"
Source: The Daily Caller - "Education Let’s Get To Know America’s Stupidest College Professor"
Now if you intend to still use the same excuses, go ahead, but you'll just prove my point further. Jørgen88 ( talk) 11:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(notifying interested parties who have previously been involved in this aspect of the article @
Jørgen88:, @
NeilN:, @
Wikimandia:, @
Pmw2cc:, @
Shibbolethink:, @
199.48.245.215:)
Following the original edit warring it appeared that there was consensus that the inclusion of Kotsko's twitter joke was undue. Pmw2cc and Shibbolethink now say that they disagree and it should be included. The relevant policies are clearly
The twitter joke is a trifling incident. The majority of the reporting comes from right-wing blogs that are not remotely acceptable as WP:RS for a BLP. CampusReform, for example, is a social-networking site created by a right-wing activist. But even if there were multiple credible sources — the only mainstream outlet that mentioned this was the right-wing propaganda vehicle, The Washington Times — we have to go back to BLP where policy states "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." A twitter joke about white privilege / white guilt is not relevant in this instance. It may be verifiable... but it is still insignificant to the article topic. As this appeared to be the status quo — and the edit warring to insert the material stopped when Jorgen88 and his sockpuppet were blocked and the page semi-protected — we must defer back to policy, which states: "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies." The burden of proof is on editors to establish here that this is not UNDUE and that this is a significant, widely reported (in multiple, reliable 3rd party sources) incident which any high quality biography or encyclopaedia would contain. It isn't. Keri ( talk) 09:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
This looks like the sort of page that Adam himself would have written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.17.42 ( talk) 17:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Adam Kotsko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
After reading this page, I'm not at all clear why Adam Kotsko is any more noteworthy than any other professor at a mid-tier university. Since most of those professors don't have Wikipedia pages, I'm left wondering why he does. It also sounds very suspiciously like this person wrote this page up himself. I looks like there is only one author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C100:630B:2059:74A4:A7C:6A26 ( talk) 05:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
After reading your comment, I'm not at all clear why you feel the need to go around shitting on other people's hard work, unless it's to apply some salve to your own disappointing and uninteresting non-accomplishments. Having read several of Kotsko's books, I use this page to keep tabs on his output. You should perhaps spend less time fretting about other's importance in comparison to your own and maybe more time studying their habits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.78.148 ( talk) 20:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, this subject does not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. This professor may have a perfectly respectable academic career, but it takes more than that to qualify for a self-standing Wikipedia article. Neither is "keeping tabs on his output" sufficient justification; this isn't the place for fan pages. The Shimer-specific wiki already exists, no need to import this professor's bio into main Wiki. I'm proposing deletion. The sourcing alone is a dead giveaway. Those references that don't direct back to his personal blog are extremely minor citations inserted to give the appearance of notability where none exists. NB: This has nothing to do with the amount of effort put into the article or anyone's relative importance or self-worth. If that's unclear, I suggest you read up on Wikipedia's deletion policies, specifically /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Please_do_not_take_it_personally. Grifter84 ( talk) 23:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that this subject does not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. There's no reason for the extensive discussion of an otherwise unremarkable academic (assistant prof.) at a little-known college other than to reward self-promotion via this channel.
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 August 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This page uses content from Shimer College Wiki, a project to better document Shimer College and its people. The original content was at Adam Kotsko and is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) license. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. |
Although I am not at liberty to remove the tag, this appears to be an entirely frivolous nomination, even by our steadily-decaying standards. How many fields would one have to be a published authority in to satisfy A7 by this interpretation? And A7 can scarcely trump the GNG in any case. -- Visviva ( talk) 00:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Just as a reminder, there are certain rules that needs to be followed. Don't break these rules. Jørgen88 ( talk) 10:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
So even though several users here are stubbornly trying to censor my edits, even at the talk page, I now represent several more sources building upon the professor.
Source: The Washington Times - "White college professor: All whites ‘complicit’ in slavery" [1]
Source: The Daily Caller - "White Professor Informs White People They Are All Currently ‘COMPLICIT IN’ Slavery"
Source: The Daily Caller - "Education Let’s Get To Know America’s Stupidest College Professor"
Now if you intend to still use the same excuses, go ahead, but you'll just prove my point further. Jørgen88 ( talk) 11:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(notifying interested parties who have previously been involved in this aspect of the article @
Jørgen88:, @
NeilN:, @
Wikimandia:, @
Pmw2cc:, @
Shibbolethink:, @
199.48.245.215:)
Following the original edit warring it appeared that there was consensus that the inclusion of Kotsko's twitter joke was undue. Pmw2cc and Shibbolethink now say that they disagree and it should be included. The relevant policies are clearly
The twitter joke is a trifling incident. The majority of the reporting comes from right-wing blogs that are not remotely acceptable as WP:RS for a BLP. CampusReform, for example, is a social-networking site created by a right-wing activist. But even if there were multiple credible sources — the only mainstream outlet that mentioned this was the right-wing propaganda vehicle, The Washington Times — we have to go back to BLP where policy states "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." A twitter joke about white privilege / white guilt is not relevant in this instance. It may be verifiable... but it is still insignificant to the article topic. As this appeared to be the status quo — and the edit warring to insert the material stopped when Jorgen88 and his sockpuppet were blocked and the page semi-protected — we must defer back to policy, which states: "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies." The burden of proof is on editors to establish here that this is not UNDUE and that this is a significant, widely reported (in multiple, reliable 3rd party sources) incident which any high quality biography or encyclopaedia would contain. It isn't. Keri ( talk) 09:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
This looks like the sort of page that Adam himself would have written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.17.42 ( talk) 17:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Adam Kotsko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
After reading this page, I'm not at all clear why Adam Kotsko is any more noteworthy than any other professor at a mid-tier university. Since most of those professors don't have Wikipedia pages, I'm left wondering why he does. It also sounds very suspiciously like this person wrote this page up himself. I looks like there is only one author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C100:630B:2059:74A4:A7C:6A26 ( talk) 05:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
After reading your comment, I'm not at all clear why you feel the need to go around shitting on other people's hard work, unless it's to apply some salve to your own disappointing and uninteresting non-accomplishments. Having read several of Kotsko's books, I use this page to keep tabs on his output. You should perhaps spend less time fretting about other's importance in comparison to your own and maybe more time studying their habits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.78.148 ( talk) 20:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, this subject does not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. This professor may have a perfectly respectable academic career, but it takes more than that to qualify for a self-standing Wikipedia article. Neither is "keeping tabs on his output" sufficient justification; this isn't the place for fan pages. The Shimer-specific wiki already exists, no need to import this professor's bio into main Wiki. I'm proposing deletion. The sourcing alone is a dead giveaway. Those references that don't direct back to his personal blog are extremely minor citations inserted to give the appearance of notability where none exists. NB: This has nothing to do with the amount of effort put into the article or anyone's relative importance or self-worth. If that's unclear, I suggest you read up on Wikipedia's deletion policies, specifically /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Please_do_not_take_it_personally. Grifter84 ( talk) 23:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that this subject does not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. There's no reason for the extensive discussion of an otherwise unremarkable academic (assistant prof.) at a little-known college other than to reward self-promotion via this channel.