- 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Bruce Conforth
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Bruce Conforth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deletion requested by Conforth on WP:VRT, ticket:2021090510000014, text copied from the email with his approval.
"I would like to request the deletion of the Bruce Conforth Wikipedia page as not being of notable content. I created that page (under the user name Emmetman) as a vanity issue. I made up some of the material and anything else does not constitute worthy notability. This page was created by me solely as a self-advertisement. I wanted to make myself seem notable, but I am not. If you read the page it is all of self interest and does not belong on Wikipedia." -- Cabayi ( talk) 15:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 15:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 15:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 15:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 15:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The pass of WP:NAUTHOR looks unambiguous to me, with the biography of Robert Johnson having lots of reviews in high-profile venues, and another book African American Folksong and American Cultural Politics having at least two reviews [1] [2]. The deletion request seems to be because of the sexual harassment allegations covered in the NYTimes [3]. While I have some sympathy, I don't think this is the kind of marginal notability pass that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE refers to. The article could use a good trim for unsourced content. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 16:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - That's not very helpful on his part; what exactly is made up (although his POV editing is an issue)? There's a lot of coverage in regard to his curatorship and his writing. Is he upset about the sexual assault allegations in the article? Although in this case, The New York Times devoted a substantial article to it, which it MAY not have done if it thought Conforth was not already a notable professor/writer/curator... The article does seem overly detailed, so maybe it's a TNT issue... (edit conflict) Caro7200 ( talk) 16:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR; coverage of the sexual harassment allegations implies that the article is not "all of self interest". Unsourced content should be fixed up or, most likely, removed; I've zapped a couple bits, and the entire "1960s" section could potentially go. If you were there, you wouldn't remember, right? XOR'easter ( talk) 17:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. His book reviews (including in the WSJ) are enough for WP:AUTHOR. And when your indiscretions become an article in the NYT, it's a little late to say "oops, maybe I should try to stay more private after all". — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Bruce Conforth
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Bruce Conforth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deletion requested by Conforth on WP:VRT, ticket:2021090510000014, text copied from the email with his approval.
"I would like to request the deletion of the Bruce Conforth Wikipedia page as not being of notable content. I created that page (under the user name Emmetman) as a vanity issue. I made up some of the material and anything else does not constitute worthy notability. This page was created by me solely as a self-advertisement. I wanted to make myself seem notable, but I am not. If you read the page it is all of self interest and does not belong on Wikipedia." -- Cabayi ( talk) 15:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 15:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 15:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 15:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 15:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The pass of WP:NAUTHOR looks unambiguous to me, with the biography of Robert Johnson having lots of reviews in high-profile venues, and another book African American Folksong and American Cultural Politics having at least two reviews [1] [2]. The deletion request seems to be because of the sexual harassment allegations covered in the NYTimes [3]. While I have some sympathy, I don't think this is the kind of marginal notability pass that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE refers to. The article could use a good trim for unsourced content. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 16:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - That's not very helpful on his part; what exactly is made up (although his POV editing is an issue)? There's a lot of coverage in regard to his curatorship and his writing. Is he upset about the sexual assault allegations in the article? Although in this case, The New York Times devoted a substantial article to it, which it MAY not have done if it thought Conforth was not already a notable professor/writer/curator... The article does seem overly detailed, so maybe it's a TNT issue... (edit conflict) Caro7200 ( talk) 16:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR; coverage of the sexual harassment allegations implies that the article is not "all of self interest". Unsourced content should be fixed up or, most likely, removed; I've zapped a couple bits, and the entire "1960s" section could potentially go. If you were there, you wouldn't remember, right? XOR'easter ( talk) 17:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. His book reviews (including in the WSJ) are enough for WP:AUTHOR. And when your indiscretions become an article in the NYT, it's a little late to say "oops, maybe I should try to stay more private after all". — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.