Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Ginsberg

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. Secret ^account 01:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ginsberg[edit]

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

Inadequate references for notability--refs 1 & 2 are self published, & it does not appear that 4 & 5 are likely to have substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - abuse of deletion process. Use 'references' tag insteadAndrewjlockley (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While his book doesn't appear to be self-published (according to Amazon, it's from HarperCollins), writing one book with little or no media coverage and impact (Amazon UK rank 73,656) wouldn't be enough for an article anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside here, I suspect these sorts of books don't tend to have a long shelf life. It reached at least number 3 in Amazon's marketing books, and number 6 in BusinessWeek's bestseller list for September, 2005. Neither are huge results, but then I don't know how it went beyond that. - Bilby (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep - I added some of the refs before, and there's a bit on this person floating around. Of the references, the Boston Globe article is specifically about him and his book. The Kiplinger's Personal Finance piece is a longer article, and he gets about a column - around six paragraphs, and they're all directly about him and how he made his money. Finally, the Chicken soup for the enterepreneur's soul piece is where the authors "interviewed" various enterepreneurs, including Ginsberg - it is about 4 pages of his thoughts, followed by a one-page summary of his career. The first part is a primary source of sorts, and isn't currently used in the article, but the second part is non-trivial and secondary. As I see it he meets the non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources requirement. That said, I'm not sure that we really need an article on the subject, but that's more of a value judgement. - Bilby (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How long is the BGlobe article? DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About 700 words, according to NewsBank. It's primarily about his book, but there's a bit about him personally to give some context. The Kiplinger piece is much more of a profile, and I suspect speaks more to notability. NewsBank turns up about 16 articles, but most are tied to speaking engagements, so I don't see them as sufficiently reliable even in the occasional case where they have something to say. The only exception is "Why open an online store?" in the Weekend Australian, which has a short (650 word) interview with him, mostly about why eBay is great, (the focus of the article), but occasionally wandering into his motivations. Personally I think he's marginal, but I guess the query is which side of "marginal" people are inclined to fall on. :) - Bilby (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Globe content is a book review (as can be seen at [1]); as indicated is primarily about the book, not information/commentary about the individual that seems to confer notability. A vignette by him in a Chicken Soup book and a few profiles and interviews here and there, which have been picked up by a few other online sources (as is ostensibly commonplace in the world of internet marketing). Most of the content provided in the references, and everything else I can find, doesn't particularly show notability as an entrepreneur, nor as an author. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete marginally or not notable biography of a living person. Apparently he wrote a non-notable book about selling stuff on eBay. There are not multiple sources that provide non-trivial coverage of this person. Fails WP:BIO. Further, he has not received significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. -Atmoz (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not really that concerned about this article, but I note that there was significant independent coverage - the Kiplinger's Personal Finance piece, at least, which I'd count unquestionably towards notability - and the book was actually rather successful. (I was curious, so I asked at a couple of stores in Australia, and was surprised to learn that it still sells). I'd still agree with "marginal", though. :) - Bilby (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not significant coverage. Racepacket (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. ^Izzedine 04:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There does appear to be significant coverage of the man's achievements outside of the book as well as his backstory to warrant notability. I've added a few more sources and also some contextual quotes from the articles he is mentioned in which should back up this assertion. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:30, 3 December 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.