Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah Berlatsky (2nd nomination)

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. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Berlatsky

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

DELETE Berlatsky hasn't done anything notable for over a year, his article is likely to never be expanded upon and will always remain a stub. Additionally, the one book which someone has claimed as 'notable' to the best of my knowledge, never went on sale in my country or many other countries, if he was of any notability, his books would have certainly been published outside of the United States by his publishers. Furthermore none of his books have actually sold well at all, so how is that notable? Unless someone can quote something of genuine significance, this article needs to be deleted, one of the editors is even called NoahB (obviously meant to relate to Berlatsky), therefore the article is mainly being caretaker-ed by someone who has a COI. ChieftanTartarus (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of these arguments are valid reasons for deletion. Wikipedia is a work in progress and deletion is not cleanup. There are tons of articles right now that aren't being touched, but that's not a reason to delete them all or else Wikipedia would just be an encyclopedia mainly about celebrities. Your argument about a book not being on sale in your country as proof of non-notability is ridiculous and if it was a valid reason we'd never have articles on, for example, many award-winning Japanese books just because they weren't sold wherever you're from. Same thing about sales figures: many articles have been about financial failures (not to mention this was published by a university press; clearly not meant for mass market). Lastly, conflict-of-interest editing is allowed and unless an article is completely an advert, not a reason for deletion. This article was already at AfD; you need to base your argument on our notability policies and not your personal feelings on what constitutes notability. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (including the subsection WP:NOEFFORT) and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Opencooper (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Considering the UK is a pretty large market for books, I would say it is a pretty valid reason. Plus if he was notable how come very few people have heard of him? How dare you accuse me of having personal feelings on this issue, my reasons are valid and are in no way personal. Proof that they are not personal can be found here: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions ChieftanTartarus (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess we can just start deleting every article on things you haven't heard about then. See WP:IDONTKNOWIT (from the aforementioned essay) and WP:OBSCURE. Also, I'm not saying you have personal feelings about the article's subject, but rather you have a personal conception of what constitutes notability that is opposed to our actual notability guidelines. Opencooper (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps it would make more sense to create an article on the website he founded The Hooded Utilitarian which is what makes him most notable out of his achievements and then merge his article into it under a subsection about the website's founder? ChieftanTartarus (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came into the discussion thinking that it would be easy to find some element of notability here, but I cannot. I'm using the criteria for creative professionals here.

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. No He's published a single book and has published a few articles. Based on that, I'm more notable than that!

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. No

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. No Again, a single book.

The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. No He has produced one book.

Based on this, I cannot justify voting to keep it. Stui (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Made a statement I regret. I will formally apologize for that. However, I will clarify I'm not a sock puppet, my userpage is just a placeholder. WP:NOOB.
Delete - After further review, I change my stance due to a lack of evidence for notoriety. --Kirbanzo (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm NoahB, the subject of the article. I just wanted to clarify; I didn't create the article. Once it was up I tried to make sure there was well-cited information, and dealt with some vandalism. If the article is going to exist, I want it to be at least vaguely professional, which it was not before I edited it. Having said that, I have no preference in terms of keep or delete. NoahB (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @NoahB: Thank You for clarifying who you are, and I'm glad that you made contributions which made the article more suitable for Wikipedia, however my preference will remain the same regardless, thank you for taking the time to comment. If the resolution ends up being to keep the article, you will need to clarify a WP:COIEDIT when you edit the article, or alternatively you can request that someone else makes the edit for you by requesting an edit on the talk page. I hope you understand. ChieftanTartarus (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2018 (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.