Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Ellenbogen

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Ellenbogen[edit]

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

YSWT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

American computer consultant. Claims of notability are weak. Sources are offline so cannot verify. However I doubt they come to much. Searches online have produced very little. Fails WP:BIO. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claims are weak ("The book How Can I Help? by Ram Dass has been reported as Ellenbogen's "guiding force" in helping on-line users resolve their computer problems, ..."; how is the use of a book by a notable person a notable fact? How many editors here have read The Bible and live by it?). ~~Note, likely conflict of interest, article creator mainly active with the articles Ecco Pro and MagicView (deleted article on an Ecco Pro add-on).~~ --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)(redacted, --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment. I did some effort to read the references. I could find refs 1 & 2 (the book by Marcia Yudkin) and 4 (The Economist Intelligence Unit report). All three mention Gary Ellenbogen as a source of information, but that does not make one notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I could not find the second reference (the book (? by Stu(art) Bloom). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP;BIO by a mile. The first mention is trivial and the next two references are worthless. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that both Cameron Scott and Beetra have failed to disclose their personal issues involved, primarily arising out of my efforts to stop insertion of promotional links to pirated software at the ecco_pro article. Notability established by notable mention in published book, and magazine article. You can buy the book on amazon and verify. how is the use of a book by a notable person a notable fact? That use was reported in a published book. What in the world COI are you accusing me of ??? I am a specialist in the ecco pro article, how is that a COI ??? YSWT (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
user is a SPA who is unhappy that he is able to get wikipedia to reflect 'the truth', that's all I'll say here it's irrelevent to the specific subject of this AFD. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is about the 15th personally directed, false comment you've made about me directed to impune my reputation, and/or discredit . I have repeatedly asked you to stop doing this, as have other editors. YSWT (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May I note, that you say open with "Please note that both Cameron Scott and Beetra have failed to disclose their personal issues involved"? That is not exactly directed at the content of the article, is it? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, I have NOT accused you of a COI here. I notice that there is a 'likely COI', which is something TOTALLY different.
Really ? YSWT (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned 'likely COI'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And we both don't have to disclose our personal issues here (although, I don't think I have ANY personal issues here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think stalking another editor and making groundless allusions to a COI relates to a personal issue. YSWT (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking? Now who is accusing here? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the subject matter of this article, Gary Ellenbogen is a respected and famous expert in personal information management and particularly ecco pro. As a Creative professional, he is regarded as an important figure and widely cited by their peers and successors with relationship to the field of PIM implementations. The work done in the early days of on-line forums at the compuserve forum is historically significant. Per wikipedia guidelines a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. All these criteria have been met for this subject. An independend secondary source, a published book, spent considerable time discussing the subject, to the extent of explaining Ellenbogen's "guiding force" in helping on-line users resolve their computer problems. Multiple independant secondary sources have discussed the subject.

The argument for deletion " Claims are weak " meets no wikipedia criteria. YSWT (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that we pointed you earlier to the relevant policies and guidelines. These sources do not establish notability, but I am sure you can find better ones. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that 'we pointed you earlier' is not a legitimate discussion argument. If you have legitimate arguments for deletion which comply with wikipedia guidelines, please share them. YSWT (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only useful source is the book and the coverage there is trivial, he's mentioned 3 times for a couple of lines in 830 pages and that's simply as an example of a forum moderator. It's all trivial. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and why is that. At lesat one published magazine article (Stu Bloom) was written about Ellenbogen. He was the subject of the article which focused on his authorship of articles about ecco pro. In addition to that, he was sufficiently the focus of a book on net marketing to be quoted as to his approach as the forum sysop. Ellenbogen and Hoots were two 'pillar' figures in relationship to the development of an on-line community for ecco-pro. I think there is suffient references establishing notability for his own article (as opposed to adding him as a part of the ecco pro article). He is a major figure in the specialty field of PIM management, but within that field he is certainly notable. Each notable figure from each specialty should be included in our encyclopedia. This is non-triavial, is not an 'ego' biography, etc. YSWT (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources are very weak, and fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, that argument is weak. Unless you can direct to some wikipedia criteria on 'weak' or 'strong' references, the is 'weak' argument fails to comply with any legitiamte wikipedia guideline for deletion. YSWT (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Botom line is that Ellenbogen has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, and additionally has been mentioned and quoted in books and other seconday sources. YSWT (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Ellenbogen was not the subject of the published secondary source material, nor of the books and other secondary sources. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement is in error. Ellenbogen was main subject of the Bloom article. YSWT (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article by Stuart Bloom is "Welcome"/"Easy Ecco". --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage in reliable sources consists of being quoted a few times, and minor mentions. There is no significant coverage about him to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has guidelines for establishing notability. To which guideline is "no significant coverage" directed specifically ? YSWT (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - WP:GNG -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having written an article about software does not make one notable. I'm not seeing anything in the article that meets WP:BIO notability requirements. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article written about the author of a sotware article (as is the case here), does, however.YSWT (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete -- I did multiple searches for this person and came up with too little for an article. A Google News Archive search turns up no media coverage for any Gary Ellenbogen that's a computer consultant (just a dentist in Virginia). A Google Books search turns up four passing mentions in one book [1] by a Marcia Yudkin; as of today, that book ranks #1,608,104 on amazon.com's sales list. A general Google web search turns up only 140 unique hits for all Gary Ellenbogens (besides the dentist). Even I'm more notable than this person and that's setting the bar very, very low. I don't see why we have this article -- this person clearly does not meet our standards for notability. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not related to returns from google searches. If you can cite any wikipedia guideline that google search results negates notability otherwise established, please enlighten. YSWT (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 16 August 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.