Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Kannenberg

Add links
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 Delete early per WP:SNOW, the fact that the only "keep" votes are from single purpose accounts that appear to be sockpuppets, and the request of the subject of the article. Risker (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rand Kannenberg[edit]

Rand Kannenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article was created by COI editor User:Cjas now blocked and edited by three other editors, one of whom User:MisterMeth has admitted that all four editors shared the same computer facilities and are suspected of being sock or meat puppets, cf. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MisterMeth. The article is not referenced by WP:RS and I can find no references establishing notability apart from his authoring 2 books and a dissertation [1]. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see my note below about how article had major rewrite with details. Thank you.--CertSociPrac (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficently notable and as it stands not NPOV. NtheP (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I object. This biography of a living person (BLP) Rand Kannenberg should NOT be deleted for the following reasons (all according to Wikipedia Deletion and BLP guidelines as cited below):
  1. According to Wikipedia deletion policy, " Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again..."[1] Rand Kannenberg was already proposed for deletion and there was an objection (see: 13:44, 19 April 2007 Darksun (talk | contribs) m (390 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD a3). using TW). Again, this proposed deletion is not allowed.
  2. The subject of this article "...is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."[2] Rand Kannenberg has 72 references listed ("published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and articles should be based primarily on third-party sources").[3] Only eight of the references (item numbers 9, 10, 11, 25, 40, 41, 43, and 65) may not meet this criteria. 64 references, however, are without doubt reliable. All of the 72 references are "... attributable to a reliable, published source").[4]
  3. The subject of this article, like any other person "...is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards:... [1] has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them;... [2] has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field;... [3] is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; and ... [4] has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.[5] Rand Kannenberg has an abundant supply of evidence that the subject meets four of the four criteria above for "any biography," "academics," and "creative professionals."
  4. Rand Kannenberg is written with a "Neutral point of view... representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."[6] The article includes "...all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias."[7] "Criticism and praise of the subject ...relevant to the subject's notability...sourced to reliable secondary sources...that does not... appear to take sides...needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone"[8] and is in this article. "Praise" material (e.g., "Awards" and "Community Involvement") includes two paragraphs of text. "Criticism" material (e.g., "Controversies" and "Personal and Family") ("Personal and Family" in this article has information about the subject's addiction to drugs and alcoholism, and estrangement from his family of origin) also includes two paragraphs. All views about the subject are presented.
  5. "Verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added...has already been published by a reliable source..."[9], applies to every quotation and other material in Rand Kannenberg.
  6. Rand Kannenberg does not include any "original research or original thought...unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position....to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."[10]
--CommCorr (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC) — CommCorr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. Without currently having any opinion of items 2 to 6, point one in this list is not correct. There are three categories of deletion: speedy, proposed and deletion discussion (AfD). The rule cited specifically prohibits repeated proposed deletions; it does not apply here as this is a deletion discussion (AfD). I42 (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the points rasied by CommCorr

  1. Already answered by I42
  2. Notability is not based on the number of references an article has but whether the subject is themselves notable. Whether Kannenberg is notable is partly the matter for discussion here. But if you want to go by the references then let's have a look at them. It could be argued that the number here is an example of bombardment. Look at references 55–64 and 66–72. As far as I can tell these are just copies of Kannenberg's lecture notes and themselves are not indicative of notability and indeed are most definately not independent of the subject - having been written by the man himself (unless of course he's plagarising other's work). To take another, reference 35 is not independent as it was submitted to the Lakewood website by Kannenberg's employers, CJAS. I could go through virtually all the references given and come to pretty much the same conclusion. They are NOT independent having been written either by Kannenberg or by CJAS. Strip all these out and there is not a lot left. The whole section on community involvement says very little. It lists a whole raft of things that Kannenberg has proposed but doesn't give any idea as to the outcome. If all of these were successful then I can see some degree of notability being achieved. Are all businesses in Lakewood smoke free as a result of his proposal? I don't know because the article fails to tell me.
  3. Notable standards. Rather than say all four criteria are met, would you care to supply some specifics because I don't see any of the four at all. I thought I saw one with the line ... was awarded a "Certificate of Accomplishment" for "24 Years of Distinguished Service as a trainer, mentor and addiction professional" by the National Association for Addiction Professionals (NAADAC) on June 20, 2008 but then found that the only reference was a contribution to the Lakewood hub by one Patricia Kannenberg. Would that be Kannenberg's wife by any chance?
  4. Neutral Point of View. I had quite a lot of difficulty with this one as the article is so poorly written that it's hard to work out what Kannenberg actually does. Eventually I worked it out. The section on criticism is almost apologetic in tone and fails entirely to show what the criticisms were raised for or by and why they are relevant to - his attitude to drugs, alcohol smoking or something else? The section of his personal life is again non independent being based entirely on admissions by Kannenberg himself. Nothing to indicate that they are true. If this article were truly written in a neutral sense then the lead section would not read as a CV for the subject
  5. Verifiable. Well yes if we accept all Kannenberg's own statements as being correct then it's all verified but that's not enough. See WP:V#SELF especially the second pargraph.
  6. WP:OR I don't think any one is claiming that this article contains original research, so any discussion is pointless.

To reiterate this article lacks the evidence to show that the subject is notable and/or the independent sources to back up that viewpoint and as such should be deleted

As an addendum, I see CommCorr has nominated this article for GA status. If I were the reviewer it would be auto fail not only for lack of notability but for it's very poor standard of writing and failure to adhere to WP:MOSBIO. NtheP (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Simply not notable. A few obscure or local awards don't really change that. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply not noteworthy, aggressive self-promotion aside. --Calton | Talk 03:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see reliable source references in general; there are a few that may make it over the line, but if one limits oneself to those it becomes even more difficult to establish notability, which, as editors above have argued, is already a problem. Also, I agree that this is not NPOV. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real reliable source refs, even the CO papers have given more trivial mention for a comedy club than for his role in CJAS. This has got to be one of the most absurd GA nominations ever. I'm surprised that the article has stayed under the radar for two years. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I know about this person because my kids went to the same school where he did (but many years before to tell you how old I am). My grandchildren are literally warned by their teachers (at the same school actually) about Wikipedia. They are prohibited from ever using Wikipedia as a source in their written assignments. Now I know why. I created an account to edit the page many angry editors who obviously have an agenda now want to delete. I logged in this afternoon to see if my section about Mr. Kannenberg's personal and family problems was still there. It is. But now there's a heading about deleting the page. That wasn't my intention. I just thought the article was too positive knowing that the Internet has evidence of the edit I made. I hit "What links here" and read the pages and pages and pages of nonstop efforts from one editor in particular, and many others, from his country and elsewhere, to delete this page. As CommCorr points out, an objective editor (not the ones angry about the "war" - what I read happened a few days ago) would know that your own pages say people who work together and use the same computer system with separate user accounts are not sockpuppets. I'm just guessing they all work at the local hospital. We all use our computers during lunch or break to read e-mail at my office as well! I imagine this is common these days, right? I am asking for someone with the real authority to read the article, to read CommCorr's comments seen earlier, and without personal point of view or opinion or perspective use Wikipedia's guidelines to see that Mr. Kannenberg is notable and that the article about him meets or exceeds the other three requirements. No wonder school kids are told to stay away from here. If they only knew what happened behind the scenes. What I have been reading on all of your pages and in this review is like a soap opera. How are you given your jobs? Like I said, your boss needs to read everything to see the big picture. You should be embarrassed by what you have said, how you have said it and what you are trying to do. I'll never trust a word about another article on Wikipedia. I am going to Britannica.com, MSN.Encarta.com, or Encyclopedia.com. I searched "online encyclopedia." You are listed after them. I wonder why. I will also be sending a letter to Wikipedia as soon as I can find their address or fax or e-mail contact information. As my grandchildren say, "Get a life!" I will tell everyone I know about this so they understand what really happens on this website. You are dangerous. You have too much power. You have too much anger. That's it for now so I can file a complaint with the foundation.--WRHSFan (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC) — WRHSFan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The problem with Wikipedia, WRHSFan, is that people don't read the disclaimer that's linked at the bottom of every single page you read here. We're very honest about this website. It's user-submitted content, and it's not to be trusted without checking your facts elsewhere. And we don't pretend it's anything else.

    Have fun emailing the Wikimedia Foundation, and in the meantime, we'll be deleting the page.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:Notability. Article subjects need to have been covered substantially in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have. :P—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be sure to spell my name correctly in your complaint. Too many people spell is Nightshift. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep.
  • Improved article Rand Kannenberg as recommended by “Social sciences and society” and “Culture and society” section.
  • Made numerous and substantial changes in content and format.
  • Article seemingly mostly complete without major issues.
  • Article seemingly relatively important to this project.
  • Now well written, factually accurate and verifiable, broad, neutral and stable.
  • Unable to locate any images without dispute regarding copyright status.
  • Subject is a VIP in fields of sociology, crime and addiction.
  • (But, article should have probably been deleted without major rewrite. It did not talk about why he was notable.)
--CertSociPrac (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)— CertSociPrac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: i see no improvements that confirm notability or address the non RS sources already cited. Is this another sock do you think?. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The style has improved but still lacks relaible verifiable citations. If refs 13 & 14 are peer reviews of his work then notability may be shown but as no URLs are quoted I fear they might just be original articles by the subject. NtheP (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum I've looked through the references and the only ones that I can find that are fully independent are 24 & 28 which relate to book reviews to be found here [2] at page 17. NtheP (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum
Article improvements to meet keep criteria (in response to all requests above).
  1. Added "Founder and immediate past Co-chair of the Sociological practice Association Mental Health Interest Group.
  2. Agree with Jezhotwells. "Large numbers of citations to non reliable sources." Reference 42 could not be verified. Removed.
  3. Agree with Jezhotwells. "Large numbers of citations to non reliable sources." Added electronic source cited in Reference 20.
  4. Agree with Jezhotwells. "Large numbers of citations to non reliable sources." Added electronic source cited in Reference 13.
  5. Agree with Jezhotwells. "Large numbers of citations to non reliable sources." Added electronic source cited in Reference 4.
  6. Agree with Jezhotwells. "Large numbers of citations to non reliable sources." Added electronic source cited in Reference 3.
  7. Agree with Jezhotwells. "Large numbers of citations to non reliable sources." Added author, editors and page numbers of non-electronic source cited in References 1, 2 and 16.
  8. Agree with Jezhotwells. "Over-wiki-linking of common words." Removed all but ones related to subject material.
  9. Agree with NtheP. "Better written but still lacks in independent verifiable sources. E.g 13 - a url for this would be helpful as it may be independent but otherwise still relies too much on press quotes supplied by CJAS.
  10. Removed {{cleanup-rewrite}}. Article does have encyclopaedic tone and is no longer promotional in tone because "Feel free to edit beyond this point" on page. No warning not to.
  11. Removed {{cleanup-rewrite}}. Very good prose. All text from peer reviewed, refereed and juried journals. Also, does conform to the WP:MoS guidelines. Because "Feel free to edit beyond this point" on page. No warning not to.
--CommCorr (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum
--CommCorr (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:
  • Google News lists a total of 8 stories mentioning him, 4 of which are about his early 90s comedy club, 2 of which are about no smoking bans, and none of which are from outside his local area.
  • Google Scholar lists no other works as citing him.
  • Google Books lists no books by others that mention him.
  • PESI HealthCare's "become an author" page makes it clear that they are not a traditional advance-paying publisher.
  • Links to shopping carts, books in print, and slideshare.com do not count as verifiable reliable sources. And that's not mentioning links to Flickr pages photocopying journal articles.
To be fair that's probably in repsonse to my point that it was a pity that what might be an independent source wasn't available on line. I'm glad it's been supplied as it was useful to have seen it but I wouldn't have suggested using the flickr url in a citation. NtheP (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one needs to go away, if only for the reason that there's insufficient third-party sourcing to write an article about him. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DoriSmith officially, and personally because of the incessant WP:SPA promotion by suspected sockpuppets/meatpuppets. -- œ™ 01:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The new version of the article is now more focussed and readable, but would still need major work - in its near frantic attempt to assert notability it is full of peacock terms and is not written from a neutral point of view - indeed neutrality is further brought into question by the removal of the criticism section which existed before. But this is irrelevant because ultimately the subject is simply not notable per Dori and others, and no amount of work on the article is going to fix that. I42 (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of substantive coverage from reliable sources, despite claims of our sockpuppeteer. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DEL
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
  3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
  4. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources
  5. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
  6. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
  7. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
  8. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
  9. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
  10. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rand_Kannenberg&oldid=1142610291"