Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph J. Romm

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph J. Romm

[edit]

Deletion of vanity article written by someone very well known to biographical subject of article. PotomacFever 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a vanity article since the subject of the bio is well known to the creator of the page. To establish that the subject is well known to the author, look here and here. The wikipedia criteria for deletion of vanity articles are clearly met in this case. As the criteria note: "Though it is written fairly broadly, this criterion is mainly intended to deal with vanity articles created by their subjects or by people personally known to them." --PotomacFever 17:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles is not a set of criteria. Our criteria for biographical articles are Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Uncle G 19:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. See below. --PotomacFever 00:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines:"As explained below, vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of assertion of notability is." The subject appears to be notable. What are the grounds for deletion? Fan-1967 18:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is true that I am a friend of Dr. Romm's. Nevertheless, Romm satisfies the notability criteria for Wikipedia. Romm is a well-regarded author and expert on distributed energy, clean energy technologies and global warming, having published several important books on these subjects and dozens of articles in well-respected magazines and journals, such as Science. He is also in demand as a lecturer on these topics. Romm was Acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Dept. of Energy[1] during the Clinton administration, in charge of the renewable energy and energy efficiency research programs at the Dept. of Energy. He is a frequently quoted energy and global warming expert [2] [3]for news outlets. He is quoted/interviewed extensively in the current film Who Killed the Electric Car?. A search for "Joseph Romm" on Google yields 23,400 hits, and a search for "Joseph J. Romm" yields 19,400 hits. Romm is currently a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, editing their global warming blog and is part of an energy consulting firm. I do not know why, but for the past few months PotomacFever has been attacking the Joseph J. Romm article and also the article on Dr. Romm's book The Hype about Hydrogen. Note that a Google search for '"The Hype about Hydrogen" Romm' yields 16,400 hits. Today PotomacFever falsely accused me of sock puppetry. I have only one Wikipedia account. I have created well over 100 new articles and made many thousands of edits on Wikipedia, mostly about musical theatre. Do I have any recourse against such an accusation? -- Ssilvers 18:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:VANITY is not a valid reason for deletion if the subject is notable, and this AfD doesn't assert any other reason for deletion. Espresso Addict 19:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article asserts notability, and the nom doesn't back up the well-known-bio claim it asserts. --Dennisthe2 19:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets reasonable standard of notability. Is every editor now supposed to prove they never met the person they create an article about? Edison 20:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject of the article appears quite notable and the passage from Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles is a guideline on the criterion rather than part of it itself. For the editor to simply know the subject of the article doesn't automatically make the article a vanity article. --Anivron 21:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. —dustmite 21:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the fact that the article has been edited by an acquaintance of the subject need not disqualify it. For one thing, this editor has been up-front about this, as shown above here; the pertinent question is whether the subject is worthy of inclusion: I say he is, based on his book alone (The Hype about Hydrogen). +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that it meets Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. There you will find a list of items/criteria that a person could satisfy and be worthy of an article. For the bio in question, the two notability items for which the strongest case can be made are 1) political figure; and 2) author. I believe it meets neither. With regard to political figure, I don't see that being acting head of a small part of the Department of Energy satisfies wikipedia's guideline: "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature." The second item we could argue to make a case for inclusion is as a popular author. Here Wikipedia/notability suggests: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." I'm not aware of any awards his books have received, and these publications are neither peer reviewed nor published by an academic press. For comparison, consider how many recipients of the Tyler Prize, the biggest award for energy and environmental policy, do *not* have corresponding Wikipedia articles. I've applied these two items from the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies because I believe them the most apt. However, I want to know what the rest of you think. That's what makes the whole enterprise work. I do this to improve the product. Thanks. --PotomacFever 00:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is nothing in the standards about peer reviews, just multiple independent reviews. His books have been reviewed and discussed in numerous reputable magazines, newspapers and broadcast outlets. That makes them notable: they have been publicly and widely noticed. Peer reviews are only relevant to academic publications, not to commercially published books. Fan-1967 00:59, 30 September 2006 (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/Joseph_J._Romm&oldid=1070597078"