Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrus Cantrell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Re: Cyrus Cantrell
Del this non-notable academic, tho he is a solid citizen and an above-average contributor to society. His article was added only after his daughter's suicide, and is being used to argue his influentiality will make the dau. significant in the activism re suicide prevention or teen anomie, or in the ghoulish fascination that passes itself off as part of those worth causes. Not notable. --Jerzy(t) 15:35, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

  • Delete - The only google hits besides his university homepage are all mirrors of this WP article. Not notable. His daughter's suicide, though tragic, is especially unencyclopaedic. TPK 15:48, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: His contributions are greater than J. Random Ph.D., having written textbooks. I have voted delete on his daughter's article, above, but notability for the academic is provided by the article. If his daughter fails VfD voting, she will need to be de-linked here, though. Geogre 16:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep all professors. Dunc_Harris| 18:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't have any strong opinion on his daughter because I don't know how widely her death was reported, but Cy seems marginally notable in several different ways. Everyking 19:13, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, insufficient notability. Did you read what TPK wrote in his comment? Jeeves 22:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, I searched for the textbook with his last name and got a great number of Google hits, so I don't know how he only got WP mirrors. Everyking 23:06, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Lean towards delete, tho' admittedly he's probably at least within a stone's throw of the cutoff point. Appears he was published as CD Cantrell--I get 356 hits for "Modern Mathematical Methods for Physicists and Engineers" (305 if I add his last name), which isn't none, but isn't really that many. Is just one text book, published by a university press, with an Amazon rank of 1,625,415 really enough? My mom's book, also published by a university press, has an Amazon rank of 678,505 and I haven't been planning on writing about her. Come to think of it, my uncle is a retired professor that I'm pretty had at least one book published (I don't remember the title, so I can't search for it, and it was long enuf ago [60s or 70s maybe?] he and it probably don't have much Web presence), and I hadn't been planning on an article for him either.
  • Delete. Amazon rank of 1,642,415 is fairly low for a science textbook. I once searched random graduate textbooks in my quite specialized area (considerable more specialized than this one) and most were in 200,000-1 million range. Andris 12:58, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • But that isn't all; besides being a textbook author that gets him hundreds of Google hits, he's also a professor and Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at a university and the author/co-author of a hundred papers, in addition to his claimed but undetailed work in photonics. I'm not saying any one of these things is necessarily sufficient for inclusion, but with all of them together it seems to me he slightly surpasses a reasonable threshold of notability. Everyking 14:27, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • There is a considerable number of academics with a hundred papers. Regarding hits on textbook, I looked through them after writing my comment. I wanted to see how my of them are from courses using his book (as opposed to bookstores and university libraries which often order lots and lots of books). It appears the only course using his textbook that I can find on google is his own. Andris 09:48, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Jerzy, this is ghoulish. And not everyone who has written a textbook is encyclopedic. -- orthogonal 21:26, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: at the risk of being overly careful, i disassociate myself from the introduction of "ghoulish"-ness to the discussion. I see no reason to infer any motivation beyond what is from my PoV excessive zeal for a worthy case, or any other faults beyond what from my PoV are misjudgements of significance, proportionality of means and ends, etc. And ghoulishness would not be a reason for deletion per se. --Jerzy(t) 03:17, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)
  • From this page, Dr. Cantrel would seem to be an absolutely ordinary academic. All academics publish papers, a large percentage have written at least one textbook, and many of them end up filling administrative positions at some point. Nothing in the article suggests how he would stand out from the crowd. Hence (with all due respect to the good doctor,) delete. Isomorphic 05:46, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm for the delete on this one, but I was the last time it came up, too, and it made not a whit of difference. And I still say Sarah Marple-Cantrell doesn't merit an article of her own, either. Bearcat 06:57, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)