Talk:Robert Brulle

Notability Criteria

Per the notability criteria for academics, I don't think this BLP meets the standard. "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions are notable. Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable.

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
No evidence of this.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
No

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).
Apparently not

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
No

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
No

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
No

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
No evidence for this.

Yes, copious evidence for this, Including Frontline (U.S. TV series), Scientific American,National Geographic, USA Today, The Guardian, and Fox News. Hugh (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability established: "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert" Hugh (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, not so much. One study shopped to multiple venues does not make for "substantial impact outside academia". See WP:BLP1E Capitalismojo (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Especially given the prominent errors. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"shopped" Do you have reliable sources that the subject of this article was paid for having his work featured by Frontline (U.S. TV series), Scientific American, National Geographic, USA Today, The Guardian, and Fox News? Hugh (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"one study" The subject of this article's work on funding was featured in Frontline (U.S. TV series), Scientific American, The Guardian, and Fox News while his work on opinion influences was featured by National Geographic and USA Today. Hugh (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"prominent errors" I would like to read the RS on the errors. Hugh (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You do know that's not what the term "shopped around" in this context means, right? Its not about payment. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

As regards the problems with his research. Check google. Pretty easy. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.
No

9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. No

Given this, I think we can say this academic isn't notable. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC) ..........

Puffery from CV

This is not supposed to be a secondary CV for the subject. Reiterating SPS here is not appropriate. We should be endeavoring to add RS refs not mining SPS for puffery. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This current version is not how academic's articles are assembled. In particular, membership in academic groups shows up in almost no sociologists' articles. In the rare instance that it does, it occurs as a brief list before the reflist not as a paragraph discussing the orgs/professional clubs. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Memberships in professional organizations and service to professional organizations are important to notability. The sourcing is perfectly reasonable under RS and SPS. Hugh (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

No. Memberships in clubs and associations are not indicative of notability. The criteria for academic notability is listed above. Being a member is specifically not a criteria. This is not how other academics articles are put togther. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, being the Head Editor of a journal is a criteria (again see above), being an editor is not notable. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Extreme Puffery

The non-standard usage and description of the subject's media intersection is odd. In no other BLP do we have the mere existence of media usages become an entire section. Ordinarily media is used as ref to bolster facts in an article. Here the refs are turned on their head and are used to bolster the perceived importance of the subject. This article should be restored to standard academic BLP style. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)