Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Barry Rosenberg (scientist)

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. What we have here is a disagreement on whether if someone is notable, it should be kept despite problematic editing, or if promotional editing alone is a reason to delete (and/or SALT, although definitely no consensus to do the latter). It appears that enough editing has been done by established, uninvolved editors that this is somewhere between an N/C and a Keep. Given that it was trending in the latter direction per the improvements that have addressed early concerns, I have closed it as such. Whether this is the best name for Rosenberg's article is a question that can be addressed editorially and doesn't need continued discussion here since there's no realistic closure that removes the content. Star Mississippi 15:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Barry Rosenberg (scientist)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Louis_Barry_Rosenberg

There is an existing COI investigation open regarding this page. Rosenberg has been historically caught doing substantial undisclosed paid promotion on Wikipedia, and the recreation of this article at a different name after the resounding consensus on the last AfD speaks volumes.

He has also been known to use sockpuppets in the past, so be aware of that. If you vote delete, consider also whether or not you think salting is appropriate given the history.

That said, there may genuinely be an argument that he passes WP:NPROF here. I'll leave that up to the masses. BrigadierG (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. BrigadierG (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite. A lot of the content in Academic career and research and Other ventures looks fishy to me, like every single possible thing he did happens to be included. I don't think he's notable enough to need that big of a Other ventures section, and the Academic career and research could be trimmed down to just the relevant bit about the "Swarm AI" technology. I think the article should be about 5-6k bytes, because he doesn't seem notable enough to match the size of the current article. RPI2026F1 (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT per WP:PROMO. No evidence the subject passes WP:NACADEMIC.4meter4 (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:BIO per in-depth coverage from Forbes, Bloomberg, BBC and Forbes Japan. SmartSE (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt on the grounds that it would need a complete rewrite even if article-worthiness were established and to draw a hard line against promotional editing. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, and people who treat it like it is should feel bad. The sources linked above contain minimal biographical information about Rosenberg himself; at most, they could be used in articles about companies he has been involved with, presuming that those articles are themselves justifiable. The puff-piece tone of that corporate coverage makes me doubtful they would be very useful sources there, either. XOR'easter (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably unclear from my nomination where I stand on this, so I'll make it clear: Delete and salt as nominator per the extremely bad faith behaviour of creating the article under a different name intentionally to avoid attracting attention following previous WP:UPE across multiple articles, and the use of multiple sockpuppet accounts. The extremeness of the abuse overrides the very marginal claim of notability I think mostly falls afoul of WP:INHERITED. BrigadierG (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the sources found by SmartSE, the subject has a stellar citation record. We usually consider a scientist notable if they have an h-index of 20, a few articles with >100 citations, and something like 2000 citations total (depends a bit on the field). This guy has over 48,000 citations with an h-index of 128 and more than 100 publications with over 100 citations each. Yes, the article is not very good and there is abuse and promotionalism. I understand that people want to apply a nice dose of TNT, but salting is definitely out of the question given the clear notability of this person. The article needs careful editing and then watchlisted by multiple editors), not deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC) Delete, per DGG below. --Randykitty (talk) 06:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: That h-index includes mostly patents which I don't think is typical. I couldn't find a way to exclude them and I'd be interested to know if anyone else can. SmartSE (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's indeed unusual. Pinging DGG, to see what he makes of this. --Randykitty (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can exclude patents from normal Google Scholar searches, but maybe not from profiles. So just search for his name [1] instead of using the profile. Usually the results come out in close to citation-count order. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is salting out of the question, when anything that might be worth writing about could be covered in an article on a company or the technology itself? XOR'easter (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't salt an article on somebody who is notable, even if the current article would get deleted based on TNT. If the bio of this notable person is to be included elsewhere, then a redirect would be needed. --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But "Louis Barry Rosenberg (scientist)" isn't at all a plausible search term, and I haven't seen anything in any of the sources provided (or found via searching) that I would consider necessary biographical information. XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the dab isn't necessary, but it was my impression that it was proposed to salt every possible iteration. As for biographical details, thaat is often minimal in the case of scientists, but info on their careers is usually easier to find. --Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning keep. Excluding patents, the top papers seem to have GS citations of 797,381,244,[148],[147],138,[125],120 (the ones in square brackets might not be traditionally published). The highly cited papers are mainly from the early 1990s. Also having hundreds of patents with hundreds of citations must count for something, surely? Open to arguments either way; this profile is not the usual. Also pinging David Eppstein whose expertise might be relevant. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:SIGCOV based on the coverage in the sources mentioned above by SmartSE. The article should likely be moved to "Louis Rosenberg (inventor)" or "Louis B. Rosenberg." TJMSmith (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and California. TJMSmith (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a clear conflict between those wanting to Keep this article and those advocating Delete & Salt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete I agree with Randy that he is clearly notable. But lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. An even stronger reason is advertising, particularly self advising. This is illustrated by the contents: inclusion of his non notable self-published fiction, and very borderline notable film. As for manner of writing, I notice the excessive use of his name., characteristic of press releases and advertisements.. .This counts to me as editing in defiance of our rules, and in a manner such as to degrade wikipedia into a collection of notable puff pieces. I would alss ban as NOT HERE--he is not here to build an encyclopedia but to advertise himself. Possibly after he is removed, [[User:|]] Randykitty}} might write a proper article limited to the science and without the puffery. . DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Stellar 128 h-index, hundreds of publications and patents and many citations. I also saw that SmartSE and TJMSmith have already worked on the page and improved it significantly, and now the page does not look very promotional. The best action here would be to further improve the current page. --Suitskvarts (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article consistent with WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV with coverage in Forbes Staff, BBC and Bloomberg. I agree that that "Writing" section is less relevant and could be shortened or removed altogether. As for concerns about COI, there is an established protocol for that, which can be implemented by any Wikipedia administrator to protect the page from vandalism, edit warring, or other disruptive edits in the future. Idunnox3 (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, as self-promotion based on sources with promotional tone. Ignoring the WP:COI policy justifies salting. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am surprised to see so many delete and salt votes when some editors (including myself) have started to perform a WP:HEYMANN. Much of the tone has been improved...although there is still room for further improvements. TJMSmith (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. He clearly passes WP:GNG and probably WP:NACADEMIC because he is getting literally thousands of annual citations in major journals. The promotional tone is a valid concern, but at this point enough of the article meets WP:NPOV that WP:TNT seems like overkill. Chagropango (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist given that this is a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: not sure why everyone is throwing salt around; has this been deleted and rewritten? Regardless, the subject is clearly notable, and AfDs are not for poorly-written but notable articles. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 18:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article has been deleted previously. Funcrunch (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Daubert standard (edit conflict destroyed my longer argument). Bearian (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: Maybe I'm just thick, but that makes about as much sense to me as if you had said delete per Special:Random. SmartSE (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Smartse:, I was thinking the same thing. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 18:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Bearian's reference to Daubert is that we need to "exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence". In the lead of this article, for example, there are two dubious assertions stated as fact:
1. ...that he is a scientist. His degrees are in mechanical engineering. The only reference I have found that labels him as a scientist is his Lifeboat Foundation bio, which appears to be a c.v., and gives his title as "Chief Scientist" of his own company, Unanimous AI. As Groucho said, "Close, but no cigar."
2. ...that "He was the Cotchett Endowed Professor of Educational Technology at the California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo from 2005 to 2011." He may have been at Cal Poly from 2005–2011(see the bio cited above), but he was not the Crotchett Professor that entire time, as his colleague Shirley Magnusson held that honor from 2004-2006, and there do not appear to be any mentions of him in official school records as to when he held the endowed professorship. A Cal Poly College of Engineering 2005-2006 Annual Report, page 17 just announces, "Other new faculty included Bently Endowed Professor Julia Wu and Assistant Professor Lou Rosenberg", and a 2007 "Top 20 under 40" article, page 32 doesn't mention the endowed professorship.
So clearly the lead is inaccurate, and looks a lot like puffery. Every cited fact in the article needs to be checked against a RELIABLE source, and written in a paraphrase or summary that adheres to the actual facts, without exaggeration or bending toward adulation. In addition, the list of books he has self-published via one of his own companies needs to be deleted, and other extraneous non-neutral statements revised to meet WP:NPOV standards. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The current version is significantly different to the one OP brought here. This person is "really notable" and easily passes WP:GNG. Here are some additional reliable sources that discuss Louis Rosenberg:

Keep, WP:GNG pass. Per Malay Mail, he developed the first augmented reality system in 1992 for the US Air Force research labs. Additional coverage to support the page [2], [3], [4]. HCIhistory (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2022 (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.