Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Rosenberg
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The result was withdrawn by nominator.. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nathan Rosenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article tagged with {{notability}} since May 2008 lists some publications by the subject, but I am not certain it meets WP:NOTE, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I searched research databases for secondary source coverage, but I was only able to find brief mentions of the individual in relation to his work, not really enough biographical discussion for an article. Cirt (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He's a full professor at one of the premier universities on the planet. I suspect he might meet WP:PROF. Protonk (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could suggest some WP:RS sources that give significant discussion such that the biographical detail in the article could be given a full treatment? I am not certain there are enough sources available to do that. Cirt (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could, but it isn't necessary in order to avoid deletion. Protonk (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well we should not retain the article if the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of the language in the GNG. However, the SNG regarding academics suggests that for important figures within disciplines, the sourcing probably exists even if a cursory search fails to find some. Protonk (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect your view, I would just like to see some of that sourcing. Cirt (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Start with most of the results on the first page. then try any of the scholarly reviews of his major books. Then try this. I don't want to belabor the point, but there is a reason PROF is written the way it is. Protonk (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is certainly possible that there is some significant discussion of biographical detail in there, but most of those seemed like brief mentions. Cirt (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That was a mighty fast read of more than a dozen sources. Protonk (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated above, I went through some of them prior to starting this AfD page. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. My mistake. Protonk (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Cirt (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. My mistake. Protonk (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated above, I went through some of them prior to starting this AfD page. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That was a mighty fast read of more than a dozen sources. Protonk (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is certainly possible that there is some significant discussion of biographical detail in there, but most of those seemed like brief mentions. Cirt (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Start with most of the results on the first page. then try any of the scholarly reviews of his major books. Then try this. I don't want to belabor the point, but there is a reason PROF is written the way it is. Protonk (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect your view, I would just like to see some of that sourcing. Cirt (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of the language in the GNG. However, the SNG regarding academics suggests that for important figures within disciplines, the sourcing probably exists even if a cursory search fails to find some. Protonk (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well we should not retain the article if the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could, but it isn't necessary in order to avoid deletion. Protonk (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He has an entry in Contemporary Authors, which notes that there are reviews of his work in the Journal of Economic Literature, the Los Angeles Times Book Review, the New York Times Book Review, Choice, Economic History Review, and Library Journal. (In my experience, notability for scholarly authors is determined by the sources about their works. There may not be much biographical information on an author, but if we can cite reviews of his or her work, that's usually enough.) Zagalejo^^^ 19:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Named chair at Stanford, clear pass of WP:PROF #5. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As dry as I found his writings when I read some of them aways back, he makes economic history buffs gush, so he is definitely notable in his field. I pulled up some stuff on 1986's "How The West Grew Rich" and added it to the article.--Milowent (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Nom withdrawn. Feel free to close as Keep. Cirt (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There was a "Festschrift"-journal issue in honor of Rosenberg. Added it to the article. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2009 (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.