Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Katz (author)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. The article was expanded and improved during the debate, allowing those advocating "keep" to cite WP:HEY, and noted that a single editor having a conflict of interest is not a reason for deletion when that can be fixed by others. While a few comments from those advocating deletion gave a substantial argument, too many were simply vague remarks like "not notable" or "spam". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Katz (author)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

David Katz (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. This WP:PROMO article appears to be about a subject who is not independently notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only source is the subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable. The links that have been provided are either from Amazon or links to the authors writings. None of them are in-depth or show significant coverage. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article now includes cites to significant reviews of Katz's work from Publisher's Weekly, With Guitars, and Record Collector Magazine. All of these are independent and reliable sources. I believe these also establish that Katz passes WP:NAUTHOR. Several of these were added by 1dubwize today, and I think they constitute an example of WP:HEY. If those expressing views above did so before these cites were added, then I urge them to recheck this and reconsider. None of them addressed any of these sources. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DESiegel, you mean this, this, and this? And you mean point 4c of NAUTHOR, suggesting that this is "significant critical attention"? My "reconsideration" is that if that's enough to pass NAUTHOR, then NAUTHOR is too weak for me to take seriously. The subject doesn't meet GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that is exactly what I mean, Muboshgu. Multiple multi-paragraph reviews, from separate independent reliable sources, meets both the GNG and NAUTHOR 4c. Do you deny that these are independent? Do you deny that they are RSs? If that is not enough for you, what level of crtitical attention do you want? The point of NAUTHOIR is that coverage of creative work is coverage of the creator. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DESiegel, Publishers Weekly may be RS, but I've never heard of With Guitars or Record Collector Magazine (edit: I see that it has an article at Record Collector) and their lack of Wiki articles suggests they may not be RS. Further, what biographical information are we getting about Katz from those reviews? Nothing, other than that he is an author who has written on subjects. This is not coverage of the creator, so I don't see this as "significant critical attention". I'd be thinking a NYT book review or some such publication might be "significant". – Mu*:boshgu (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That you have not heard of a source, Muboshgu does not make it non-RS. And there whole point of NAUTHOR is that critical attention to the work makes the author notable, the presence or absence of biographical information is irrelevant (nice to have, but in no way required). There are additional reviews out there, and i will be adding some. Requiring NYT-level reviews, particularly for specialized works, is way too high a bar. Computer books get reviewed by computer publications, jazz books by jazz publications, etc. That is ample. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DESiegel, I just don't agree with that sort of "critical attention" making the author notable. We're not going to agree on that point. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • An effort has been made to add references that better meet the criteria. There has been coverage of the author and his work in newspapers including The Times (UK), The Independent, The Glasgow Sunday Herald, NME, Q, Mojo and many other recognized publications but most of that material is not online, since the book he is most famous for was first published in 2000. The article should be kept.1dubwize (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    1dubwize offline sources can be quoted, and cited, in and article, and can count toward notability, if they otherwise would. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC) @1dubwize: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG; clear promo material. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 18:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see lots of mentions in the news, fair number of hits in a google search, the article needs work, but he looks like a notable author. --evrik (talk)
  • undisclosed COI - according to his recent post at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, User:1dubwize is David Katz. Interesting, no? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- per WP:NOTINHERITED, being the author of a notable work does not make the author notable. There are many obscure authors of notable works, where the work has drawn attention but the author (as in this case) fails GNG, and fails it big-time. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Orangemike, I think you and Muboshgu are both misunderstanding NAUTHOR. WP:NAUTHOR point 3 says The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. and point 4 says The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention. As I understand the above, those points, and particularly point three, mean that if there are multiple critical reviews of an authors work or works in independent reliable sources, that establishes the notability of the author as having created such works, even if those sources mention nothing about the author except that s/he created the work. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DESiegel, belatedly replying, I don't think I'm "misunderstanding" NAUTHOR #3 or #4. I am questioning its interpretation if it leads to this article getting kept. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Muboshgu If you look into the history of the debates over NAUTHOR (in the archives of its talk page) that in general both those who favored it and those who did not saw it as I have been suggesting here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per DES who is correct about WP:AUTHOR. Hobit (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have just added a "Critical reactions" section to the article, with quotyes from several reviews, some of which were not previously cited in the article or mentioned here. I believe this makes the case for NAUTHOR even stronger than it was. Closer please not additional info added t this point. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-admitted autobiography, perilously close to a G11 speedy. Nuke this spam. Guy (help!) 09:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do note that being an autobiography is in no sense a reason for deletion. Promotional content that is short of a G11 can be and should be corrected by editing, not by deletion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DESiegel, this is spam. Created by a spammer to promote his product. That's a great reason for deletion. I am also entirely unpersuaded of the purported sources for notability. Guy (help!) 21:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I m afraid I cannot agree that this is spam, JzG. Apparently several experienced editors do not agree either. I cannot be sure of the subject's motivations, of course, but the fact that an editor here is also the subject (or says that he is at least) was openly admitted, and there seems to have been no effort to conceal it, although the form and placement of the declaration was not ideal. But as for promotion, would you care to identify those parts you find promotional? Perhaps I or others will be convinced, or perhaps they can be improved. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DESiegel, you don't have to agree. The creator admitted it though. Guy (help!) 09:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG I suppose you refer to this edit where 1dubwize wrote I am the author of three books about the music and culture of Jamaica and the wider Caribbean, ... The wikipedia page I set up ... is valid and in regular use, please undelete the page now. The article was actually created by an IP editor back in 2011, and Katz (assuming that 1dubwize is indeed Katz) has elsewhere said he was not the original creator of the article. In any case 1dubwize has clearly said that he is Katz, and may have meant that he created the article, or just that he had it deproded. But I do not see any admission or statement that it was spam or promotion, here or in any of the talk page messages that 1dubwize has posted about the article. But whether it is promotion on not stands or falls by the co0ntent of the article, not what anyone has admitted. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC) @JzG: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the RS called out by DES. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. WP:NAUTHOR was reviewed. Des has done some work to the article to show notability. Lightburst (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:HEY. It has been fixed up a lot, especially in the reviews, but could use more work. Bearian (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:HEY. Article is good enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 18:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Today I added some additional reviews to the "Critical reactions" section, which in my view further show that this passes NAUTHOR. As they include negative as well as positive comments, they help show this is not spam. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DES' interpretation of NAUTHOR matches my longtime understanding and is backed up, by people who like and didn't like the criteria, at the SNG talk page. The coverage here is enough to suggest notability. However, the revised critical reception makes it MORE spammy than before. If I saw that outside of this discussion I would take a chainsaw to it - we should be summarizing what critical sources say not just quoting them at length. But AfD isn't cleanup so for these purposes keep. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing all four criteria for WP:JOURNALIST. I've clicked through all 20 citations and I see industry book reviews, event calendars, list of participants, and news/magazine columns. Very promotional and reads like a professional resume. To say that one "contributed" to a BBC production can mean anything that gets a screen credit. Policy does say that a subject can be "..notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." He appears to be a regular music contributor to the UK Guardian and did author a cover story for Mojo magazine but I don't see anything he has done to reach a level of encyclopedic notability. Blue Riband► 13:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability isn't asserted under WP:JOURNALIST but under the rather different WP:NAUTHOR, quoted above, where the reviews are key. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete sources simply do not prove notability. (I am AlejandroLeloirRey, I can't log in here). --79.35.212.95 (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 23:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doing a glance over of the sources and the AfD discussion it does not seem that the person is notable enough for an article. Mainly it comes down to the quality of sources. Which mostly seem to be extremely trivial. Include a few of the reviews of the authors books. I don't think notability is automatically inherited when it comes to an author who's books have reviews either. Unless there is something specific about the author in relation to their work that the reviews cite that makes them notable on their own. For instance with an author like Stephen King or someone similar. Otherwise, any author with a few book reviews would have an article in Wikipedia about them. No matter how obscure or non-notable otherwise they are. Which clearly isn't the standard. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read through the guideline WP:NAUTHOR, Adamant1? The relevant parts are quoted in this AfD, It says, in effect, that when there are multiple independent sources that have discussed an author's works, the author is notable. Now maybe you think that should be changed, but that is what the guideline currently says. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are sources that describe him as "one of the world's foremost authorities on reggae, dub, and dancehall" (Afropop Worldwide, 2013) who has "contributed significantly to documenting the history of Jamaican music" (Jamaicans Music, 2013). There is a profile of Katz in The Gleaner, a mainstream newspaper in Kingston, Jamaica ("David Katz Pens the Lives of Two Outstanding Jamaicans"). I think some of the deletion arguments have a degree of snobbery in them (aka IDONTLIKEIT), especially "I've never heard of" a given source. Personally, I've heard of The New York Times and I've never heard of The Gleaner before, but that says more about me and my limited experience of the world than it does about the quality of the Jamaican press. I would encourage folks to reflect on your own perspective as well. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does Wikipedia take claims of notability from anonomous authors of interviews and the websites of digital marketing firms? Adamant1 (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia often uses news articles without bylines (therefore anonomous) as evidence for notability, provided that they are published in reliable sources. which of the sources cited in the article do you believe are the websites of digital marketing firms? Do you think any of the sources cited in the "Critical Reactions" section is not an RS? If so, which? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason your canvasing? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in any way canvassing, Adamant1. Pinging editors who have already commented in a discussion (and so obviously are aware of it) to notify them that I have responded to a comment of theirs is not canvassing. Canvassing is notifying editors who do not already know of a discussion when I expect such editors to support one side or view rather than another. Neutral notifications to editors not selected for their views on the topic (such as editors who participated in a previous discussion of the issue) is not canvassing either, but I haven't done that either. I ask that you retract the accusation or support it with diffs. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If my math is correct you've posted 17 messages in this AfD. Which is 1 more then the number of all the votes combined. I'd call that canvasing. I might be using the wrong word though. Maybe what I mean is campaigning. Whatever you want to call it, it should really stop. There's zero legitimate reason to post more messages then there are votes. Especially this far into the proccess. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, you're thinking of WP:BLUDGEON. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Wikipedia allows for anonomous sources in articles if discretion is used, but that doesn't count when it comes to product reviews and in relation to AfDs because there's no way to determine "reliability." The news outlet otherwise being reliable doesn't have anything to do with it. The article being cited has to be reliable and it can't be if it's anonymous. Otherwise, we could use the New York Times letters to the editor section to establish a topics notability, because "hey it's the New York Times!!". Which would be completely ridiculous. Re marketing firm, "David Katz unfolds the Solid Foundation of Reggae Music". Jamaicans Music." Jamaicansmusic.com is "managed" by Esirom. A self described "DIGITAL MARKETING AGENCY" (caps are theirs). I can assume what they are marketing is the Jamaican music they are supposedly reviewing. Since the website is a music platform. I'd call that a pretty clear non-neutral source. Much of the article is an interview anyway and everyone know's they aren't usable for establishing notability. You could have easily figured that out though by looking at the sources before you posted them instead of putting it on voters to figure out if they were reliable or not, because it's not our job. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you are misunderstanding the guidelines and practice on sourcing. I am not aware of any guideline or policy that says that product reviews must have named authors. If you know of such a guideline, please link to it. Many articles cite product reviews (and literary reviews, which are not the same thing) that do not have bylines, and use them tom help demonstrate notability. The reliability of the publication is usually the key to the reliability of such reviews (even ones that are signed) because a reliable source exercises editorial control over its contents, and will not publish a review without reason to trust it. Staff-written reviews are completely distinct from user-generated content such as letters to the editor. The latter is not suitable for use as a source. It is not uncommon for an article to include both an interview and analysis and commentary by the reporter. In such cases, the analysis, if independent and not simply repeating publicity, is a valid source and may be used as such. It is definitely not the case that because an articel includes some interview content, the entire article is useless as a source. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Both Reliable Sources and WP:NCORP talk about authors of reviews as much as they do the source the review is being published in. I don't really think you can separate them or say that authors don't matter simply because of the source. For instance it's agreed that Forbes is generally reliable, unless the article being cited is by a guest writer. "Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable", but also "Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable." So the author and the context does matter. WP:RSP says "Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation." It also says "Even considering content published by a single source, some may represent high-quality professional journalism, while other content may be merely opinion pieces and depend on the author's personal reliability as a source." That pretty clearly says the author's reliability matters irrespective of what they are being published in. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Several RS for literary reviews do not carry bylines - e.g. Kirkus Reviews. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Katz_(author)&oldid=969591256"