Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Greenberg (2nd nomination)

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. Although the standard benchmark of significant coverage in independent reliable sources does not seem to have been met, there is broad and reasonable disagreement here, grounded in established Wikipedia norms of notability, as to whether the subject's publications and positions mean that they merit an article. Skomorokh 23:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Greenberg[edit]

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

Previous result was no consensus. I see no indication of notability here. The only real page in all of Wikipedia that links to "Joshua Greenberg" is Greenberg, which is essentially functioning as a redirect/disambig and doesn't count. A number of the web link references are broken, and the ones that I checked generally feature Joshua Greenberg only tangentially or otherwise fail to establish notability. (A note: The user who started this article is currently unable to participate in this discussion due to the terms of an ArbCom decision, although his opinion on the matter is available on the first AfD. If it is felt that my nomination of the article at this time is inappropriate, please postpone it until he is able to contribute directly to the conversation.) Bueller 007 (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC. The majority of the sources originally cited are citations to the article subject's own webpage. I have searched and not found any WP:RS that confirm any sort of WP:N claims. I previously attempted to prune the article per WP:BLP and there does not appear to be much in terms of notability. A position as a director reporting to someone famous does not constitute notability. Additionally the bulk of the citations that are not self-citations do not establish any type of notability for the article's subject. They instead focus on establishing notability of other people that work with the article's subject. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Generally notable, though not necessarily academic anymore. Accomplishments fairly clearly establish notability. I do see the issue with it being unlinked though, that's an issue. But as for verifiable cites, there are quite a few in news.google that could be added. Others could be retrieved from archive.org. --Buridan (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided - I work in the same institution as the subject so I may be biased. From what I see his notability is based on 2 things: 1) author of a published book; 2) one of the founders of Zotero. Is this enough to satisfy WP:N? -- kosboot (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, no. Bueller 007 (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, I change my vote to Delete.

Keep His book is in 410 libraries according to WorldCat. I can find 2 reviews so far, Booklist v. 104 no. 13 (Mar. 1 2008) & Leonardo v 42, Number 1, February 2009. On the basis of that, a keep. The work with Zotero is additional notability, that might even be enough by itself. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there seems to me to be a lack of coverage in reliable sources here. The sources provided are not about him, but relations trivial mentions in connection with other things. I don't think he meets WP:PROF. With regards to DGG's comment, his book might be notable, but that doesn't mean he is. Robofish (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

peoples' achievements is what makes them notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While Greenberg has a Ph.D., his major accomplishments are in the field of librarianship. He is notable in that field. In my opinion, WP:PROF does not adequately reflect notability guidelines for librarians. Even so, he meets WP:PROF notability based on his position as Director of Digital Strategy and Scholarship at NYPL: "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society." While NYPL is not an academic institution, in addition to being a public library, it is also a major research library ( http://legacy.www.nypl.org/research/ ), and in fact one of the most important U.S. libraries, influencing library work around the world. If you disagree about the academic nature of the NYPL's , I think we need to use WP:CREATIVE to evaluate Greenberg's notability. Under those guidelines Greenberg's notability seems clear to me. First, this holds in the library world: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." Second, Zotero alone shows him as meeting this criterion: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I suspect that a closer examination of Greenberg's work in digital libraries would show him meeting a further WP:CREATIVE criterion: "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greenberg himself has weighed in on this discussion on Twitter: "Should add that I'm not personally sure that I meet Wikipedia's notability requirement myself (yet, anyways)." (posted the morning of Feb. 1, 2010) -- kosboot (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

which is what any rational person at any level of notability would say rather than stubbornly try to get in or foolishly try to get out. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a truly notable person not even be monitoring the situation at all? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really proposing that as a deletion rationale? We don't keep or delete articles based on the attention their subjects have paid to the process.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I was just responding to DGG's comment. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like an article about someone who has done their job well. If that was a criteria for notability, perhaps many of us would be notable - or maybe not :) However, as things stand, we would have to apply the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR here and, against these, the subject can not be defined as notable. It does not appear that he is widely quoted, cited or that widespread independent reference is made of him or his work in journals, books or other academic/learned media. He does not appear to have received any notable award or developed original ideas/concepts/technique. Hence my suggestion to delete. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has everybody read this? Abductive (reasoning) 00:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what of it? A 3-year old article full of idealism, some of it unrealized: now both Ferriero and Kent are gone, and LeClerc is scheduled to leave next year. Better to construct articles of living people on the latest information. -- kosboot (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of coverage in reliable sources, and we shouldn't keep articles at this low level of notability.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment wasn't it jimbo that said that subjects are notable or not, there are not levels, similarly, once notable, it is always notable. so if you think he has a level of notability, and i think he clearly passes it as a software developer and possibly as an author, and certainly as a library leader who does keynotes and such, then... he's in. reliable sources do exist for him, they aren't that hard to find. --Buridan (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course there are levels of notability. I doubt Jimbo said that, if he did he was wrong.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:49, 9 February 2010 (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.