Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Besser

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. ...with a suggestion to editors frequenting the article to spruce up the sources within the article, as pointed out by even the editors !voting keep or neutral. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Besser

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

Fails WP:BIO. Three sources are cited. One is the subject's self-published faculty profile, a second is the subject's CV. Potential conflict of interest in that the primary editor is someone who has appeared as a guest lecturer in the subject's classes. Ejg930 (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure Here are some potential sources:

"Howard Besser (Ph.D. 1997), Activist Archivists, and Digital Preservation". UC Berkeley School of Information.
"#MCN50 Voices: Interview with Howard Besser - MCN". MCN. 21 May 2017.
"Archiving from the Bottom Up: A Conversation with Howard Besser | The Signal". blogs.loc.gov. 10 October 2014.
"Digital Pioneers". digitalpioneers.library.du.edu.

These might work per WP:Interview. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep If the Library of Congress Digital Preservation Feature Series lists him as one of the Digital Preservation Pioneers and says that "Howard Besser is best known as an often-quoted visionary", sources ought to exists somewhere. Mduvekot (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neural Has a GS h-index of only 20 in a very highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Besser is not best known for his scholarship; primarily for his consultation and teaching. He is very well-known and a pioneer within these areas. --Lquilter (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC) edited to add: I'm not sure I spoke correctly there. More correct to say that I can't speak to his scholarship, but in general I take h-index with a grain of salt. It focuses on individual papers, which is useful in some fields but not all, and doesn't take into account other really significant metrics of impact, such as recognition by inclusion on review panels, grants, etc. --Lquilter (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Lquilter (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Published academic Rhadow (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think content such as this profile, this book review, and this keynote-speaker profile goes some way towards notability, but I would be more confident if such sources were less sparse. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2017 (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.