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)

Noting addition of some sources. Subject however still fails WP:PROF and many of the sources are not reliable. And the article is still an obvious WP:PROMO. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 30 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.214.76 (talk • contribs)

• Comment Please assume good faith among your fellow editors. Eppstein is writing from the viewpoint of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Calling a chief librarian equivalent to an academic department chair flies in the face of all common usage, and would require a valid reliable source for verification. As to the presence of other pages whose validity you question, please read WP:Other stuff exists to understand that this is not a valid article to make at a deletion discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• In fact I happen to think that head librarian of a university is more like a dean than a chair in rank. And librarians have faculty rank at my own university, too, meaning that they belong to the faculty senate, but this does not mean that it would be accurate to refer to them by the professor job title. Anyway, none of this really affects my opinion above. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.219.183.26 (talk • contribs)

Comment: I would like to point out that per the SPI inquiry, the IP on this edit is probably from the same school as the creator of the article, and is possible the creator himself. Zeus ^{t | u | c} 16:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Orenstein is selling himself. An article doesn't have to be selling a product to be promotional. If it exists solely to praise and promote the reputation of the subject, it is also promotional. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Wikidan61 is himself reading into the entry something which does not exist. In no place in the Orenstein entry does it ask to be consulted, hired, or employed in any way. It is a list of facts about the subject. Period. This is a sad state indeed, almost a form of intellectual Fascism, to think one's own bias in what they read is true for everyone. If you read other entries about people, living or dead, list their accomplishments, writings, and other information. The question to you sir is where does Orenstein "sell" himself? Please explain and give a direct and specific answer please.

Also, there is no "praise" or other adulation in the entry. Where sir, in the entry is there such a value judgement? You are implying something based on your own bias. Please, read again and give specific examples of praise. If you can find one, just one, I will agree with you.

Do you consider that some may read the entry and not praise but be revolted by the activities or just be neutral? Given that there are other ways to respond to what is read and since you do not know the intent of the creator of the entry, the idea of "selling or promoting oneself" is a stretch indeed.

Comment: I would like to point out that per the SPI inquiry, the IP on this edit is probably from the same school as the creator of the article, and is possible the creator himself. Zeus ^{t | u | c} 16:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I find it very ironic (and funny) that "Zeus" has called the writer above "the creator." Isn't that Zeus' job?" :-)

• Comment This is written by Wikipedia itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editors_will_sometimes_be_wrong

• Delete per nom. This professor is borderline notable at best. Most of the references don't meet WP:RS and the few that do refer to this individual accepting relatively obscure positions not warranting a Wikipedia article. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 20:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Comment" Subjectivity rules based on the less than esteemed comments by the editors. "Borderline notable" How do you arrive at this? And where is that line? Please explain "Obscure positions" You mean Orenstein's major programs in the United States and Internationally? If I didn't know better, I'd say this whole message board would make a great article or college class in communications or information science about how uninformed and "paper tiger" Wikipedia truly is. In its efforts at democracy, it has settled for mediocrity.

• Comment All the arguments made for deletion have been valid, article doesn't meet multiple Wikipedia policies, is of a non-notable professor, and there are several several sock puppets adding comments and not signing them. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 22:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Comment" As of 5/30/14 this article is no longer an "orphan." Someone independently linked it to the Medgar Evers College faculty page

I don't think that is going to change many votes. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC).

• "Comment" The reason why Carmen Trotta is "allowed" is because the reference are from a source that satisfies WP:RS (check it out) And if you want the article to keep on existing, add a list of articles here and show us (according to regulation) why the sources are correct. P.S -read the WP:RS before commenting again :) Tomato 33 (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)