Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Seifer

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. Deor (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Seifer[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO, WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR. The sources are all indicative of a certain fame within insular WP:FRINGE communities, but we need more than that for a WP:FRINGEBLP. jps (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Claim to fame seems to be his autobiography on Nikola Tesla, and even that is only cited 73 times. At this time, I lean toward delete as not meeting the guidelines for inclusion for notability. User:Shoessss (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only noteworthy thing about this individual seems to be that he wrote a book on Tesla, which, though reviewed in a few reliable sources, apparently failed to make much of an impact. This makes him non-notable as an author. His scholarly output is far too modest to meet the requirements of WP:PROF, and there is insufficient substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources to meet any of our notability guidelines. His notability does not extend between a tiny subset of the fringe pseudoscientific community. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His Tesla book is well reviewed in Publishers Weekly, Booklist, Library Journal, Technology Review] Nature and Scientific American, and is widely held in libraies. He also has had a notable career in graphology, and his work has been discussed in psychology textbooks. Seems notable as an author, and his academic career enhances his notability. Edison (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, he is a bit more of a hack than a PROF, but we don't judge. He seems notable per WP:AUTHOR #1 "widely cited by peers", we don't judge the "peers" either. Sites like huffingtonpost.com do go to him[1] and he seems to get interviewed[2]. His Wikipedia entry is pretty padded and self serving so I'd vote for knocking it back to a stub until it can be supported by secondary sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We learn about his favorite series and films and there are wonderful sources like pipl.com! And then people want to delete it, now really... Seriously, I have no time looking into this to see whether there is any notability here or not, so I won"t !vote right now, but at the least this needs an axe and needs to be stubbified. --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Ditto with Edison. He is a respected and notable author and handwriting analyst. Investimate (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps enlighten us how it can be verified that he's notable? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the reviews of his work probably get him over the line but I certainly wouldn't object if someone wanted to delete this and start again or reduce it to a stub at a minimum. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or stubify Doesn't really seem to meet author or prof where is the significant coverage on the subject in secondary reliable sources? I am not finding it. One book of some note does not rise to notability, a few quotes and interviews in low to middle quality sources does not rise to notability. What would an encyclopedia entry on the subject contain? Perhaps wrote book on Tesla then what else is really notable? What secondary source calls him "a respected and notable author and handwriting analyst"? - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 2¢ 16:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity does not yet quality for speedy deletion; but this entry is a clear example whereby a biography goes into life details that are not relevant, even were this person notable beyond those people specifically interested in the subject matter which is really Nicholas Tesla. The Tesla biography is a clear example of a good wikipeida biography, and if Seifer was an expert on Tesla then his writings could be used as a source. Do we really need to know that Seifer was influenced by "Kukla, Fran and Ollie, Amos and Andy," when we really don't care about Siefer as a notable person! This type of biography might also be a "conflict of interest" based on the absolute minutia contained within a very verbose entry. I would suggest deleting this entry with prejudice. --Lfrankblam 20:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep He is a notable author: his book on Tesla is in over 1300 libraries, with multiple reviews, and his book on handwriting analysis in over 200 <see his author page in worldcat]-- he's worked on many other things & I see no basis for saying the article is mainly about Tesla This is a very useful example of how an article about even a notable person can be ruined by the inclusion of wildly excessive content--that should have been addressed 4 years ago when the article was submitted instead of just tinkering with details. I'm doing this right now. Sometimes it is appropriate to delete an article like this--when there is no usable content & it would require rewriting from scratch instead of mere abridgment, or where an attempt at rewriting has been resisted. But this is easily rescuable. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Article is far better than it was prior to your hard work and revisions. I don't know whether or not this person is considered notable enough to meet the requirements for inclusion. I still think that his work would be better represented as a citation in a Tesla entry, than as a stand alone article. If the article passes muster as a notable article, it is now of sufficient quality for inclusion.--Lfrankbalm (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs) [reply]

Is the contention that book on Tesla qualifies as "a significant or well-known work" and he thus satisfies AUTHOR? - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2014 (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.