Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David I Orenstein

David I Orenstein

David I Orenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unsourced autobiography of a non-notable professor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete, perhaps speedily under A7. I had it tagged as such but he removed it. Zeus^u|c 17:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not a Speedy Delete -- full professor and chair is an assertion of notability; it might not be enough to pass WP:PROF but way more than enough to pass speedy deletion.

True, even the assertion of notability suffices to avoid a speedy delete. Unfortunately, in this case, the assertion is unverifiable -- there does not appear to be any evidence that Orenstein is anything other than the librarian at MEC. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I wanted to head off a quick SNOW/SPEEDY though. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait, check out the talk page, maybe he can add some verifyable and notable info. Lets assume good faith Tomato 33 (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Subject fails WP:PROF. Article cites no sources thus failing WP:BLP. (That's an automatic delete unless fixed). Beyond which this is an obvious autobiographical WP:PROMO. Serious candidate for G-11 CSD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. He appears to be chief librarian at his college, which is not so much an academic position as an administrative one (at a lower level than the threshold set by WP:PROF for administrative positions). I don't see much evidence of him having a role as a regular faculty member, and the "chair" claim appears to be a reference to his position as library chief. As such, I think WP:GNG would be a better fit than WP:PROF, but I don't see any evidence of notability through that criterion either. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• Delete -- the head librarian at a major university library, I believe, would be enough for a WP:PROF pass, but other than that I think David Eppstein's analysis is correct that GNG is the better guideline for the librarian duties, and I don't see a pass here. There may be something in the prof. position, but it hasn't been documented. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This is insulting! "Delete" because of academic position? CUNY librarians have had faculty status for 75 years. Eppstein is writing from ignorance and bias and not fact. The credentials equal all other faculty in CUNY as well as all other responsibilities to the Academy including teaching, writing for refereed publications, community service and public speaking.

Also, this is why the whole process is subjective. I looked at several pages, including one "Carmen Trotta" (just an example don't think he should be deleted) and Orenstein's information is just as (perhaps more) valid and verifiable. Take a look. And then explain how and why the Orenstein page, which is well documented, unbiased, and as notable, should be deleted.

• Delete. Does not satisfy WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC).

- Wait a second - Advertisement? - How is this so? No where on Orenstein's page does he advertise to sell ANYTHING. It is a list of noted accomplishments - all real. chronological, factual and verifiable, like all other biographies found on wikipedia. Orenstein is not selling any product or any service. This is an unfair characterization.