Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David I Orenstein

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 delete. slakr^\ talk / 03:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David I Orenstein[edit]

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

Unsourced autobiography of a non-notable professor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps speedily under A7. I had it tagged as such but he removed it. Zeus^u|c 17:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a Speedy Delete -- full professor and chair is an assertion of notability; it might not be enough to pass WP:PROF but way more than enough to pass speedy deletion.

True, even the assertion of notability suffices to avoid a speedy delete. Unfortunately, in this case, the assertion is unverifiable -- there does not appear to be any evidence that Orenstein is anything other than the librarian at MEC. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I wanted to head off a quick SNOW/SPEEDY though. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, check out the talk page, maybe he can add some verifyable and notable info. Lets assume good faith Tomato 33 (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:PROF. ~~Article cites no sources thus failing WP:BLP. (That's an automatic delete unless fixed).~~ Beyond which this is an obvious autobiographical WP:PROMO. Serious candidate for G-11 CSD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noting addition of some sources. Subject however still fails WP:PROF and many of the sources are not reliable. And the article is still an obvious WP:PROMO. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He appears to be chief librarian at his college, which is not so much an academic position as an administrative one (at a lower level than the threshold set by WP:PROF for administrative positions). I don't see much evidence of him having a role as a regular faculty member, and the "chair" claim appears to be a reference to his position as library chief. As such, I think WP:GNG would be a better fit than WP:PROF, but I don't see any evidence of notability through that criterion either. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the head librarian at a major university library, I believe, would be enough for a WP:PROF pass, but other than that I think David Eppstein's analysis is correct that GNG is the better guideline for the librarian duties, and I don't see a pass here. There may be something in the prof. position, but it hasn't been documented. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is insulting! "Delete" because of academic position? CUNY librarians have had faculty status for 75 years. Eppstein is writing from ignorance and bias and not fact. The credentials equal all other faculty in CUNY as well as all other responsibilities to the Academy including teaching, writing for refereed publications, community service and public speaking.

Also, this is why the whole process is subjective. I looked at several pages, including one "Carmen Trotta" (just an example don't think he should be deleted) and Orenstein's information is just as (perhaps more) valid and verifiable. Take a look. And then explain how and why the Orenstein page, which is well documented, unbiased, and as notable, should be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.214.76 (talk • contribs)

Comment Please assume good faith among your fellow editors. Eppstein is writing from the viewpoint of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Calling a chief librarian equivalent to an academic department chair flies in the face of all common usage, and would require a valid reliable source for verification. As to the presence of other pages whose validity you question, please read WP:Other stuff exists to understand that this is not a valid article to make at a deletion discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I happen to think that head librarian of a university is more like a dean than a chair in rank. And librarians have faculty rank at my own university, too, meaning that they belong to the faculty senate, but this does not mean that it would be accurate to refer to them by the professor job title. Anyway, none of this really affects my opinion above. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not satisfy WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

- Wait a second - Advertisement? - How is this so? No where on Orenstein's page does he advertise to sell ANYTHING. It is a list of noted accomplishments - all real. chronological, factual and verifiable, like all other biographies found on wikipedia. Orenstein is not selling any product or any service. This is an unfair characterization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.219.183.26 (talk • contribs)

Comment: I would like to point out that per the SPI inquiry, the IP on this edit is probably from the same school as the creator of the article, and is possible the creator himself. Zeus ^t^{| u | c} 16:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Orenstein is selling himself. An article doesn't have to be selling a product to be promotional. If it exists solely to praise and promote the reputation of the subject, it is also promotional. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikidan61 is himself reading into the entry something which does not exist. In no place in the Orenstein entry does it ask to be consulted, hired, or employed in any way. It is a list of facts about the subject. Period. This is a sad state indeed, almost a form of intellectual Fascism, to think one's own bias in what they read is true for everyone. If you read other entries about people, living or dead, list their accomplishments, writings, and other information. The question to you sir is where does Orenstein "sell" himself? Please explain and give a direct and specific answer please.

Also, there is no "praise" or other adulation in the entry. Where sir, in the entry is there such a value judgement? You are implying something based on your own bias. Please, read again and give specific examples of praise. If you can find one, just one, I will agree with you.

Do you consider that some may read the entry and not praise but be revolted by the activities or just be neutral? Given that there are other ways to respond to what is read and since you do not know the intent of the creator of the entry, the idea of "selling or promoting oneself" is a stretch indeed.

Comment: I would like to point out that per the SPI inquiry, the IP on this edit is probably from the same school as the creator of the article, and is possible the creator himself. Zeus ^t^{| u | c} 16:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it very ironic (and funny) that "Zeus" has called the writer above "the creator." Isn't that Zeus' job?" :-)

Comment This is written by Wikipedia itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editors_will_sometimes_be_wrong

Delete per nom. This professor is borderline notable at best. Most of the references don't meet WP:RS and the few that do refer to this individual accepting relatively obscure positions not warranting a Wikipedia article. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 20:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment" Subjectivity rules based on the less than esteemed comments by the editors. "Borderline notable" How do you arrive at this? And where is that line? Please explain "Obscure positions" You mean Orenstein's major programs in the United States and Internationally? If I didn't know better, I'd say this whole message board would make a great article or college class in communications or information science about how uninformed and "paper tiger" Wikipedia truly is. In its efforts at democracy, it has settled for mediocrity.

Comment All the arguments made for deletion have been valid, article doesn't meet multiple Wikipedia policies, is of a non-notable professor, and there are several several sock puppets adding comments and not signing them. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 22:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment" As of 5/30/14 this article is no longer an "orphan." Someone independently linked it to the Medgar Evers College faculty page

I don't think that is going to change many votes. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

"Comment" The reason why Carmen Trotta is "allowed" is because the reference are from a source that satisfies WP:RS (check it out) And if you want the article to keep on existing, add a list of articles here and show us (according to regulation) why the sources are correct. P.S -read the WP:RS before commenting again :) Tomato 33 (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Comment" Super! Based on this direction and the need for non-primary sources, the entry for Orenstein has been updated to include articles from a respected professional journal and respected professional association. Take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleolibrairan (talk • contribs) 13:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment" The problem here is that source 1) does not meet WP:notability (Read it, and understand why, you must understand the reasons, being a librarian). It states that you were one of the 30 leaders chosen to be honored at a meeting. This source is about you getting a "Ten percent across-the-board raises for professional staff, which translate to about $7000 per person, and increases for non-MLS supervisors as well". Look, the reason why you think you are notable is the blog and your website and your stance in evolution right? If you find a source that meets the WP:RS AND is wp:NOTABLE then you've got yourself a page.

Look at it from the wiki perspective, if we gave every blogger that had more than half a million viewers a page we'd get stuck. Check out List_of_blogs to see what other people/bloggers have gotten as coverage to be able to exist on Wikipedia. There is a page on wikipedia about "the bear club" a blog on teddy bears, I mean really? Teddy bears?. The reason the page wasn't deleted is because the blog had coverage on bbc 1 and 2, and a few others. Tomato 33 (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tomato33 appears to be confusing the notability of topics (i.e. things that might be the subject of a Wikipedia article) with the notability of sources. Sources are neither notable nor non-notable. They may be either reliable or not, and we really only want the reliable ones, and they may include coverage of the topic that is significant or not (and we really only want the significant coverage). In this case, the Library Journal profile of Orenstein is both reliable and significant, and does count toward the weight of coverage for this individual. However, it appears to be the only source which meets these criteria. We might, possibly (although unlikely) end up with an article on Orenstein as a notable librarian, but based on available sources, not as a notable secular humanist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems like tomato33 (great name BTW) isn't a fan of the Orenstein page. Ok. No hard feelings. But when the editors ask for evidence and it is provided, to then minimize the evidence really speaks to bias more than editorial fairness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleolibrairan (talk • contribs) — Paleolibrairan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
A few random comments...

The IP address, 199.219.183.26, geolocates to location: "Brooklyn, New York, United States, North America", organization: "Medgar Evers College".
While it is true that librarians in universities are generally considered faculty, and the head of the library is generally considered equal to a department chair or possibly a dean, I can't find any reliable source which explicitly states that in this case. What appears to be the authoritative announcement of his appointment only refers to him as "Chief Librarian". That's not to say he doesn't have academic rank; just that this fact is not established by the announcement. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 5 June 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.