Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cal Newport

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 No consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Newport

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically promotional article for a series of books. There are a great number of references, demonstrating the success not of the method,but of the PR effort that has gone into it. There is no reason why we should join in. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm biased, since I'm the author of the page (however, I don't have any direct connection with Cal Newport, and have never interacted with him one-on-one). But it seems to me that the references are sufficiently numerous and diverse that notability is established. The value judgment question of whether this is because of a "PR effort" or the "method" doesn't seem relevant to whether the page is suitable to stay (for instance, the existence of pages on scientology or homeopathy isn't dependent on the factual claims of the belief systems being true, but rather on their notablity).Vipul (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A well researched article on a public figure that clearly meets the notability criteria. DGG, if you have evidence that this is a promotional article, please supply it. I remind you that assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Sir Paul (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. A GS h-index of around 20 is barely adequate for WP:Prof#C1 in this very highly cited field. Assistant professors are usually not notable. Too early. A possibility is WP:Author but I don't think there are sufficient in-depth independent sources to pass this. The BLP is disadvantaged by much puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment'Specific indications of promotionalism :

stretching for refs ::the arguments that he advocates in his books, but not his book itself, have been mentioned in the WSJ. Many of the things each of us advocates have generally also been advocated by RSs, and it makes none us notable.
unreliable sorces from lifehacker, misc web locations, Reviews by local college papers.
purely promotional "picks' from unreliable non experts.

The appearance of a large number of low quality references in no more convincing than than a smaller number, but promotional editors usually add all they can find. DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Massively short of WP:ACAD and cannot find evidence for WP:PROF or WP:GNG either.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orser67 (talk • contribs)
Weak keep. The article is so badly puffed out with primary sources, blogs and similarly unreliable sources, and sources that are reliable but not about the subject or not in-depth enough, that it is hard to discern any notability. Of the 34 sources in the current version of the article, reference [3] is an in-depth profile in a local student newspaper, references [24] and [25] are in reliable sources and list the book as one of the top ten of the year. References [28], [29], and [34] are all in the same (reliable) source (Forbes), but one of them really is an in-depth book review. Reference [31] is a Wall Street Journal story that also includes in-depth coverage of Newport's book. I think this level of sourcing is adequate for WP:GNG, but all the other sources should be trimmed, and the article itself trimmed to what its reliable sources can support. As it is, I agree with the deleters that this is far too promotional. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I have carried out the trimming of promotional material and bad sources that I think was needed for this article. As an academic computer scientist he also has some highly cited papers (four with over 100 citations each on Google scholar) but some of them appear to be work with other authors that he participated in as an undergraduate, so whether it should count for WP:PROF#C1 is unclear. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these citations? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Google scholar search for "author:calvin-newport". —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.