Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Kestenbaum

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Whether a merge is necessary can be agreed on the talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Kestenbaum

Non-notable county official. --Michael White^T·C 17:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is his unique combination of active politician and webmaster of a notable non-blog website that makes him fall on the "keep" side, to me. (Full disclosure: I know Kestenbaum, and am listed in The Political Graveyard myself.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)

Comment - correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any policy states that someone can be considered notable for a combination of two categories if they aren't considered notable for either of those categories alone. He's not notable as a county official and he's not notable as a webmaster. I haven't found any significant coverage in independent sources.--Michael White^T·C 18:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Not particularly notable, but seems somewhat so, especially considering his creation of The Political Graveyard. Granted, Wikipedia probably ins't the place for an article about a borderline notable person. I don't see what will be lost should this be deleted. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm the subject of this article. I won't cast a vote on this, but there have been multiple media stories specifically about me during the last 30 years, if anyone cares to look them up. Kestenbaum (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - can you provide us with some cites? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some cites: At the risk of proving the point below about my "BLOATED ego", here are a few pieces I could find, with a couple minutes search, which at least mention or quote me:

Washington Post, July 27, 1998: "How to Take the World Wide Web to Court"
The Nation, August 5, 2002: "Old Guard vs. New in Michigan: John Dingell and Lynn Rivers are Locked in a Battle Caused by Redistricting"
New York Times, February 10, 2003: "Email spam scam is sent in Bush's name"
Detroit Free Press, February 27, 2003: "Webmaster Helps Squash a Cyberscam"
Salon, June 8, 2004: "Invasion of the Spambots"
Detroit Free Press, August 2, 2006: "More consistent but still cool site is goal of Wikipedia meeting"
New York Times, October 1, 2006: "Hitting a self-destruct button"
Michigan Daily, May 14, 2007: "Michigan state rep takes strides for student vote"
Michigan Daily, July 20, 2007: "Michigan House passes bills to aid voters"

Hope this helps. Kestenbaum (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question is whether those sources amount to significant coverage. I haven't looked at/found all, but most seem to be quotes or brief mentions. Even the article titled "Webmaster Helps Squash a Cyberscam" seems to be primarily about the website, without what amounts to significant coverage of you, based on the excerpt on your website.--Michael White^T·C 21:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides his BLOATED ego, there is no reason to keep this non-notable "article". 75.172.29.124 (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Political Graveyard, where he may be discussed as founder and given a brief CV. He is well below WP:BIO himself, though. --Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Political Graveyard, otherwise DELETE. Proxy User (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my upmost respect for User:Kestenbaum, a Merge/Redirect to The Political Graveyard would be most reasonable considering the size of both articels. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- obviously, it needs more text and footnotes, as provided above. If anything, he's being too modest about his example cites.
1. This fellow has been active in the Internet since NSFnet days (especially the Risks digest), an often cited elections expert, and a blogger since the early days of blogging (even writing his own code)!
2. Simply Googling (58,000 cites) shows he's been speaker at many events, including Science Fiction conventions, alongside other notables like Eric S. Raymond.
3. Moreover, it's obvious nominators aren't familiar with Michigan elected officials. County Clerk is the "highest" local elected official, in those counties without elected executives. Larger constituencies than all Mayors, most State Senators, or State Representives (and in large counties, Congress-critters.) Certainly more important than District or Circuit Judges. Definitely meets WP:POLITICIAN.
4. As for ego, that's an egregious ad hominem personal attack. I've not seen any evidence supporting that anonymous assertion. It certainly doesn't look like he's the original writer of the biography.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

How long he's been on the internet or blogging or whether he wrote his own blogging code is completely irrelevant unless someone has wrote about how he's an expert in that regard, which I don't think he is. Whether he's an "often cited elections expert" doesn't particularly have any bearing on notability either, unless he meets WP:ACADEMIC or has been significantly covered as an elections expert, more than just being quoted.
Being a speaker at an event is not evidence of notability. There are plenty of speakers who are not notable. That he spoke at Penguicon and alongside Eric S. Raymond doesn't really mean anything, because notability is not inherited.
See my comment below.
Agree completely.

Keep, he's our clerk, and polisci students here need this kind of information. I was shocked that somebody wants to delete this, the notice is huge and annoying at the top of the page. And it seems he's a long-time Wikipedia editor, too. Do you always kill off your own people? What is it with this silly "Deletionist Wikipedians" nonsense!? Or is it just teens like Michael White don't care about the real world?! You'll see what it is like in college soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.2.73 (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's useful to a some people (PoliSci students in Michigan, is that what you're saying?) is not a reason for keeping it. While I have the utmost respect for the subject and his contributions, the question is whether the subject is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. I have to agree with William that he has a larger constituency than most state legislators, but WP:POLITICIAN requires first-level subnational office, and as it is I just don't see the significant coverage in independent sources required to establish notability as a "major local political figure" per WP:POLITICIAN's second point.--Michael White^T·C 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep

This is one of the worst delete nominations I've seen. Let's review Mr. Kestenbaum's notability:

1.He unequivocally meets criteria under Wiki policy for Notability (academics). Namely, he has "published a significant and well-known academic work." i.e. The Political Graveyard. It is an academic work. Its not a blog. Its credible, researched, and referenced. It is a serious and groundbreaking online resource.

-2800 Wiki articles cite the Political Graveyard as a source. This attests strongly to its use and usefulness to the general public.

-The Political Graveyard gets 20 million visits per year, thereby strongly supporting its widespread use and usefullness

-Google Search reveals over 300,000 hits for the term "political graveyard" the vast majority of which are references to his website.

-Numerous academic institutions, libraries, genealogy sites, and even government sites link to it as a suggested resource off their webpages. This includes Harvard Law Library, The state archives of numerous U.S. states, and the Library of Congress.

-The site has been reviewed or mentioned in many first-tier publications.

2. He meets the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN by virtue of being amongst "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage"

-He is the top elected official in his county. Granted, not every county clerk should be included in Wikipedia. But not many county clerks get 40,000 Google hits.

-He has received significant press coverage. Some of this predates his election to office. Some of it was after. But your local county clerk probably hasn't been a primary source for a New York Times article. Mr. Kestenbaum has.

3. Some of the objections to his wiki article are that its too short. Quit whining, and add some info, there is plenty that can be done to improve it. I'll do so right now. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.98.54 (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - I can't argue with your first point above.--Michael White^T·C 12:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per W. A. Simpson. I've also added a cite from the NYT that demonstrates he's considered a go-to expert by national media. Ford MF (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2008 (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.