Grrrr. He removed the vfd notice. Oh, and while the original version listed his degrees and said he's currently in a Ph.D. program, now he's just a "neuroscientist". Bah. Stupid grad student with an over-inflated ego. Isomorphic22:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, unless someone can demonstrate Mikula's significance, of course. I concur with Frecklefoot about Mind-Brain.com. Jwrosenzweig22:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, perhaps I'm changing my vote -- his article does go a bit overboard, but google for "Shawn Mikula" + mind-brain ... Apparently he's actually pretty well spread over the internet. Can anyone tell if this is just a successful self-promotion campaign, or if these are reputable sites? ImmInst, for example? Jwrosenzweig22:40, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
why do you think it's a vanity page? What not de-vanitize it? I'm expecting others will and that other contributions and links will be made.
The concern is whether there is enough verifiable information on Mikula to be able to do so -- I'm thinking there may be, but I think we should all express our opinions. Additionally, we have a policy against people creating pages about themselves, and you do appear to be Mikula (though I'm sure you'll insist you aren't. :-) Jwrosenzweig22:46, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I am not. I got most of the info directly from mind-brain.com and some from direct acquiantance with him.
What do you all need to find these page submissions acceptable? Better write-ups?
Speaking for myself, I need some clear evidence that Shawn Mikula's notability rises to encyclopedic standards. Some evidence that people might want to look him up in Wikipedia. For example, a notable neuroscientist might be expected to have written a book, but an Amazon search for author Shawn Mikula yields no hits. Has he, say, won a McKnight scholarship from the McKnight Endowment Fund for the Neurosciences? Anything like that? Dpbsmith02:36, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The person's article certainly has a ways to go to indicate notability (any books, works published in journals or other third parties, etc.)--is this the same person that has a bunch of poetry hits? Also, it should link to the WP mind-brain article, rather than the external link. mind-brain.com is at the top of the alexa.com category "Subjects > Society > Philosophy > Philosophy of Mind > Consciousness Studies"., but it would be a better article if it gave more details about accomplishments than objectives.Both articles should focus more on detailing notable accomplishments/works, instead of airy jargo-babble about intentions/beliefs. Keep if improved, I guess is what I'm trying to say. Niteowlneils00:14, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
He's a grad student. The current version doesn't reflect this, but that's what he is. Check the original version. Not saying he couldn't be notable as a grad student, but there's no particular reason to believe he is, either. Isomorphic05:19, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: self promotion, nonnotable. A few journal and conference publications is, sadly, no sign of notability, and neither is a vanity web site. I looked at the abstracts for a couple of his papers and it looks like pretty typical academic journal material -- solid work, I'm sure, but not distinguished. Come back in a decade or two, Shawn, but leave the poetry out of it, thanks. Wile E. Heresiarch08:29, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
You all are such hypocrites and provincials. I've seen so many pages at wikipedia that could much more easily be classified as "vanity pages" than the one that started this thread, like the vanity page about an 18-yr old at Michael Anissimov. Hypocrites and provincials, the whole lot of you, that's what you are! Congratulations on your lameness!
Comment: Good point re. that Anissimov article. Someone listed it as needing cleanup, but I'm of a mind to put it up for delete. Anyone else want to take a look at it? - Lucky 6.916:21, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
