Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Lore

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 keep. WP:COI aside, several editors have found sources which establish notability Firsfron of Ronchester 20:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Lore[edit]

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

Nicholas Lore is a non-notable writer who has written the article himself [1], and who is looking for paid editing to finish the job [2]. The sources offered for notability are two hits from the New York Times, neither of which is about him. The articles just quote him, and as we all know, this does not meet the secondary-source requirement for notability. The only other news source offered is from a local Maryland newspaper. Obviously, this single source is insufficient for notability too. A number of very minor sources are also given, but all of them are primary, and therefore they cannot establish notability either. He has a book out, but it fails WP:BK and he fails WP:AUTHOR. In Nicholas Lore’s advertisement for an editor to work on his Wikipedia page, Lore says “I'm looking for the right person to do the following: 1) Wikipedia editing - and working on an existing page. There is a wikipedia page focused on me, Nicholas Lore, which needs some improvement. 2) Create a new article page for Rockport Institute (www.rockportinstitute.com) Please write back including what and how you charge. Either hourly or by the job would work for me.” The website where the ad appears, Elance.com, is the same site that’s been used by notorious sock-farmer Mike Woo [3], who’s been blocked an extraordinary 50+ times for the disruptive WP:COI editing that has netted him thousands of dollars for writing WP articles on non-notable people and their companies. So before Woo or some other disruptive paid editor can get here to puff-up the Lore article, or create the WP:ADVERT that he so desperately desires for his non-notable Rockport Institute, we need to defend the integrity of Wikipedia by stating our consensus here on the non-notability of both Lore and his company. Qworty (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ridiculous. TV | talk 23:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Marginal notability and the article is very promotional in tone and substance. - Mr X 23:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, no significant biographical coverage other than interviews Gigs (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two NY Times articles make statements about his work and background, in addition to indirectly (no quote marks) quoting him, and are significant coverage. The nominator went through the article and removed refs to the two New York Times articles as dead links, then removed the text they were there to support as unsourced.An article about him in a local paper was removed as a deadlink, as was the text it supported. A Wall Street Journal article from 1998 that purportedly said the older edition of his "Pathfinder" book was a national bestseller was also removed. It would be easy to check the accuracy of that info at a library. Someone with the 2 NY Times article, the lengthy local newspaper article, and who actually had a national bestseller, would have a good case for satisfying WP:BIO. If you can't click and see an article online, that does not justify your immediately removing the reference and the text it supports. Most libraries provide microfilm or online access to these papers. Another editor has since added online links to the 2 NYT articles and the local paper article. The Wall Street Journal is behind paywall, but that does not justify removing it as a deadlink. There was removed as a ref a book which said he was a friend and roommate of musician John Sebastian, and you can verified that it says that, though that does not contribute to notability. It could still be mentioned if the article is kept. Starting as a COI article is not grounds for deletion if an article satisfies WP:BIO. Material self-published by the article subject may be used in some cases, as outlined at WP:SELFPUB but it does not establish notability. Edison (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The NYT articles are online, you can find them by Googling. I read them. They included snippets of interviews from the subject, but they did not contain any significant biographical coverage of the subject. Gigs (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These are the Times articles [4] [5]. Neither of them is about Nicholas Lore. I've been discussing AfDs for years now, and believe me, there are plenty of people quoted in the Times who believe they are a very big deal because of it, and they come here trying to make that claim, but in practice being quoted in the Times does not confer Wikipedia notability. The New York Times quotes hundreds of thousands of people every year in thousands of articles. Now, if Nicholas Lore had two articles in the Times that were actually about him, it would satisfy our notability standards for notability. Also, having a national bestseller is meaningless when it comes to notability. Per WP:BK, there needs to be substantial coverage of a book--a book that was not a bestseller but that had good coverage would be notable, and a bestseller that received no coverage would not be notable. Furthermore, having a notable book does not always transfer to author notability. So the fact that Nicholas Lore is alleged to have had a bestseller does not, in and of itself, place him close to notability per WP policy. There's actually a lot more to it than that. Qworty (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news archive search for "Nicholas Lore" and "Rockport" [6] shows 31 results. Many are hidden behind paywalls. I used my Highbeam account and found 14 results. One of them is [7] Nicholas Lore and the Rockport Institute: Great Source for Stories on Selecting and Changing Careers. Science Letter, November 11, 2008. It gives ample coverage in a full article about him. All the articles found quote him, he an expert in his field. So he meets requirement one of WP:AUTHOR The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. His book was apparently a bestseller, they mentioning it. The person has created ... a significant or well-known work, ... that has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. He passes WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR just fine. Dream Focus 06:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Science Letter" is the best you can do? It's a newsletter [8]. Nicholas Lore probably provided the text himself, as he does everywhere. As for the other hits you cite, you admit yourself that he is only quoted. What we need is good strong secondary WP:RS, and it has not been demonstrated that it exists for this individual. Qworty (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - He is mentioned as an authority on his subject. And since I can't read most of the articles, I don't know what all they say. Dream Focus 06:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You don't know what the articles say?! Well, that's certainly a ringing endorsement for the subject. And note that the policy requirement is not that he merely be mentioned as an authority, but that strong, solid, secondary WP:RS actually demonstrate that he is an authority. Anybody can submit his own text to a newsletter or a blog, claiming to be an authority. And what we know about Nicholas Lore is that he is a self-promoter who will stoop to anything. Qworty (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The summaries can be read, and they show that reliable sources consider him an authority. Dream Focus 06:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry, but that's just too vague for our purposes here. We need to see it in black-and-white with our very own eyes. Qworty (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        We need to be wary when dealing with someone who is clearly very self-promotional. It's entirely possible to buy or schmooze your way into light-weight journalistic pieces, and it's clear that the subject is not above paying off people to write about him in a way that seems neutral and objective. This factor should not be ignored unless it's clear that there is very wide spread and significant coverage. Gigs (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        If he knew there was anything wrong with paying someone to write an article for him, he wouldn't have been so open about it. Sounded like a harmless innocent request. Dream Focus 18:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, mm-hmm, sure. Like a guy who doesn't "know" prostitution is illegal offering money to random women in the street. Qworty (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Is it even against the rules to hire someone? They had a debate about that not long ago. I don't recall a decision being reached. Dream Focus 20:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        He wasn't open about it. I uncovered it as part of an investigation into a (different) editor that I was able to correlate with a pattern of secret paid editing and possible sockpuppeting, subject to a current SPI that I filed. There are ongoing debates about paid advocacy as we speak, but the general consensus is that paid editors should disclose their conflict of interest, and should definitely not write flattering, promotional pieces like this article. WP:SOAP has always been policy. Gigs (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, however it must be noted that the methodology utilized to discuss the various techniques imparted through synonyms of both lexicon and vocabulary as well as words and phrases in a non-unique fashion for example first sentence here of subsection Career design methodology and the manner in which the language is given to use many letters strung together but bring across a meaning of very little substance — is most amusing. — Cirt (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A published author that passes WP:BASIC per:

Donaghue, Erin (November 12, 2008). "Potomac resident makes a living by tailoring careers". The Gazette. Retrieved October 25, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Korkki, Phyllis (September 11, 2010). "Job Satisfaction vs. a Big Paycheck". The New York Times. Retrieved October 25, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Korkki, Phyllis (July 17, 2010). "The True Calling That Wasn't". The New York Times. Retrieved October 25, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Vaughn, Susan (February 6, 2000). "Work & Careers; Career Make-Over; He Wants to Hang Up Stethoscope." Los Angeles Times.
Vaughn, Susan (November 5, 2000). "Career Make-Over; Vague Goals Hurt Quest for Fulfilling Job." Los Angeles Times.
Kahlenberg, Rebecca R. (January 1, 2006). "A Coach for Your Career Change; Outside Assistance Helps the Process End Favorably." The Washington Post.
(May 11, 2008). "Career Guide a Great Present for Grad." St. Paul Pioneer Press.
Trimarchi, Michael (March 17, 1991). "For Some Workers, Pinning Down Aptitudes May Help Attitudes." The Washington Post. (subscription required)
(June 4, 2008). "Don't force a career." Kansas City Star. (subscription required)

—Also appears to pass WP:BKCRIT per the two book reviews above.Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per the NY Times articles - the subject has a degree of notability that is suitable for inclusion - Youreallycan 21:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above sources, appears to pass multiple guidelines. Cavarrone (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:AUTHOR (the guideline that should be used for this article). 22:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Liefting (talk • contribs)
Keep COI concerns aside, there is some substantial evidence of meeting WP:GNG] and WP:AUTHOR. Note that people who ask for articles to be about the subject for meeting notability are misguided: the guideline is explicit on this: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." --Cyclopia^talk 00:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Give one example of a mention in a source for this one that isn't trivial. Qworty (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cyclopia, the article doesn't have to be dedicated to the subject, but there needs to be a significant biographical focus on the subject. When that boils down to "We talked to this guy who runs a thing related to this subject and here's what he said about this subject", the only biographical coverage is the few words at the beginning of the sentence. We need to look at the kind of coverage that is going to actually allow us to write an encyclopedia article that isn't almost completely based on primary and self-published sources. If that doesn't exist, then the subject isn't notable, regardless of what any subject-specific notability guideline claims. WP:V is a policy, and WP:SELFPUB is as well, and if the article is not likely to ever satisfy those, then proclaimed notability under some misguided achievement-based SNG is an irrelevant secondary concern. Gigs (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GNG, significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Many journalists over a long period of time in the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post have approached Lore either for a quote or to build an article around. It shows us that multiple independent reliable sources consider him a person of note to speak on career counseling. The article is already beyond a stub so concerns about not enough existing material for a bio doesn't seem accurate and there is no deadline on when the article has to be further expanded, we just wait for more sources. For example, I wish we could find a secondary source for the quote from Bill Clinton who praised Lore, but for now it's only primary[9] and can't be used. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the GNG and WP:AUTHOR (Two books published by Simon & Schuster imprints). No consensus has ever been reached on paid editing. However, I am aware that many editors are biased against such entries. Also, I rarely disagree with Northamerica1000... The Steve 08:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There absolutely is consensus on spam and self-promotion. If he had never created his article here, we wouldn't have an article on him, probably ever. You are rewarding a spammer for spamming. Gigs (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - We're not here to get even with someone you believe did something wrong. If he knew the rules, he would've just asked someone else to create it for him. He certainly has enough fans. And you don't know for certain this is the same guy. I just posted on his talk page to ask the editor to identify themselves. I notice you didn't even post on his talk page telling the article was up for deletion. Dream Focus 11:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wasn't the nominator. It's not about "getting even", it's about not encouraging abuse of the encyclopedia. Gigs (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's unfair to me and others who want to keep the article based solely on the sources. You are involved in a behavioral dispute which should be handled elsewhere, AfD is a content dispute. When you use behavior to influence content disputes it crosses the line. According to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: "Accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and may result in sanctions against you." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a straw-man argument. The sources are junk. Not a single one is about him. There's also a lot of primary sourcing, which is insufficient for notability, as you know. Qworty (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to both spam and self-promotion is to Fix It. Many editors prefer to delete spammy articles that meet the GNG because it's easier and less effort, but I am not one of them. I've looked at the sources. They are not junk, this article meets the General Notability Guideline, and then some. One example, Donaghue, Erin (November 12, 2008). "Potomac resident makes a living by tailoring careers". The Gazette. Retrieved October 25, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help), is *all* about Mr. Lore. The Steve 22:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I covered that source in the nomination--do you seriously believe that a single source in the guy's local newspaper meets the requirements of multiple secondary sources? A guy who's quoted in a few places and then has one article in his local paper is notable? That's not how Wikipedia works. Qworty (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not. Have a look at Northamerica's list, his sourcing is always impeccable. However, that one source contradicts two of your own statements, "Give one example of a mention in a source for this one that isn't trivial" and "The sources are junk", which is why I used it as an example. The Steve 23:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so he's had an article in a local Maryland community paper? I'm just wondering where is the "significant coverage" factor of this guy. I believe this is spam too. Whitewater111 (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cardamom, you are grossly misinterpreting that statement on the COIN page. That statement is no longer part of the COI guideline since the recent trim, but when it was on there, it was in relation to POV disagreements and factual disputes. We should, and do, consider the intention behind the creation of an article at a deletion discussion. We regularly delete or merge articles that fall afoul of policies and guidelines other than notability. Notability is not the sole criteria to be considered at AfD. That said, this article is pretty weak on notability to start with, if you consider, as you should, the actual biographical content of the coverage. Gigs (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry, but I'm not convinced there is enough significant coverage of the subject for the subject to be considered notable. For the most part, the "sources" provided are not coverage of the subject but are coverage of other people or subjects with commentary from the subject or a mention of the subject somehow being credited with some of their success - that is not, as far as I am concerned, significant coverage of the subject. I think we need to distinguish between the subject and the advice the subject has given (effectively his "product", given he is a "consultant" or "advisor"). Acknowledging that the subject has given advice to others is not the same as giving significant coverage to the subject himself. He is providing a product and people have purchased that product. That doesn't make the manufacturer of the product notable, even if the "product" is verbal advice from the subject. Conrad Murray is not notable for being Michael Jackson's doctor (even now, his name redirects to his trial rather than a biographical article). In the same way, Nicholas Lore is not notable for giving advice to others about their careers or for the careers he has "re-designed", even if the advice or the "result" of the advice has subsequently been mentioned in media coverage. Even if we could somehow get our heads around the advice itself (under whatever name) being "notable", the subject would still not be notable for the products he has produced, as far as I'm concerned. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Major Delete as per WP:SELFPUB, and most to if not all mentions being trivial in nature. This "pay somebody to write something about me" mentality also stinks. Could this open the way for subjects being notable if they have enough money to pay editors. Not that I have any proof, but what is also worth considering that subject "X" may also be paying those to vote keep in deletion discussions. Just a little food for thought as well. Whitewater111 (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fireside and Touchstone are both Simon & Schuster imprints. No vanity publishing here. The article does need work with respect to WP:AB, but it otherwise passes muster. Faustus37 (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cited mentions are trivial (other than The Gazette) and mentioning them and the other marketing at work on the Internet is more WP:PUFF than WP:N. I'd also like to see the awards for his "award-winning" career. czar · · 19:02, 1 November 2012 (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.