Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Baer

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. Cbrown1023 14:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Baer

Adam Baer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Seems to be non notable. Was put up for speedy but speedy tag was removed since page asserts notability. Pboyd04 22:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Is notable author of cultural essays and opinion pieces promoting new policies and ideas concerning medical politics.

Breaks important cultural news on his website www.glassshallot.com. Was the first print journalist to chronicle David Lynch's meditation cult presentation and Abraham Cherrix's fight with the Virginia government over the right to use alternative medicine over chemotherapy.

I've been following Mr. Baer's work for years and he is one of a group of young cutting edge writers who is not afraid to shed some light on issues that provoke thought, such as patient advocacy, cultural criticisms, and insightful (and entertaining)essays. A prolific writer already, I look forward to Mr. Baer’s future pieces with enthusiasm. 128.125.12.140 18:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 19:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. Does not estabilish notability, no verifiable sources given. -- Kesh 22:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Jrosen68, do not remove other user's comments from this page. -- Kesh 01:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User Kesh may not understand the importance of the publications for which this subject authors articles -- or, for that matter, the importance of the articles. More than "verifiable" sources include the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, New Republic magazine, Atlantic magazine, and others. Do not delete entry based on his opinion. Subject is absolutely notable. See talk page for more evidence. Jrosen68 06:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC) — Jrosen68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• This is a tough one to deal with under WP:BIO. I see that he's written in a lot of different publications, and on a number of different topics. But, I'm having problems with the guidelines, as it appears he's a freelancer, and thus sells to those publications (or perhaps is invited to write for them, depending on the process). Problem is, WP:BIO requests multiple, non-trivial sources that are ABOUT the person involved, which seem to be missing; it also asks for independent coverage of a published author's works, also not available that I could find. Journalists are tough to place, unfortunately, and freelancers even more. At what point does a freelance journalist become well-known? Having said that, the article needs work and actual links to references. Neutral, as the guidelines don't help and he's published enough for me to not be able to flat-out say delete. Closing admin: good luck. =P Tony Fox (arf!) 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Claiming "importance" does not help satisfy WP:BIO or WP:V. Further, deleting votes you don't like and insulting other editors does not help one's cause. -- Kesh 02:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No insults were rendered, just facts about the verifiable sources that this author writes for. Kesh: Do you consider the NY Times an important publication? Do you consider writing a best-selling book about 9/11 important? No one is claiming importance--we are showing you that the policy needs to be adjusted for cases like these. Tony Fox stated Neutral above and closed the admin, stating that the guidelines don't help in the case of an influential staff journalist and notable independent writer. He's right. The article should be edited as any other and left to stand. That's why the note was removed from the top of the edit page, only because the argument is now closed. We should remove the note on top of the entry, edit the entry if we like, and move on. Thanks. -- Jrosen68 02:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. I'm not an admin, I didn't close the discussion, I simply wished the person who *does* close it after the full five-day discussion period good luck. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So you don't consider saying his job is important, compared to mine, to be an insult? Noted for the future. As for not claiming importance, you keep using the word in this discussion.

That said, the NYT itself is notable, but we can't simply give an article to everyone who gets published in the NYT. The authors themselves must be notable per WP:BIO to warrant an article here. And I do not believe Mr. Baer satisfies those requirements. -- Kesh 20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable sources exist within the paid archives of newspapers like the NY and Los Angeles Times for Adam Baer. Some of his articles can be found on the Web site glassshallot.com. His work has also been written about in Arts and Letters Daily, USA Today, The Los Angeles Times, and other publications of note. Mikebeef 17:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC) — Mikebeef (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you'd care to cite those references and add them to the article, that would go quite a way towards convincing me the article can be saved. -- Kesh 20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Kesh, Do you alone have the power to save or delete this article? It seems like other people have a lot to say on this matter. One published work in the NY Times may not be notable, but when a writer is regularly engaged to write for many publications of this caliber, year after year, it is because he is a notable writer. Here, if you'd like to see it, is one notable NYT article by this author. It's the NY Times's first ever large article about the proliferation of Wi-Fi internet access. Check their database to verify this. http://www.nytimes.com/ref/open/thisweek/12wifi-OPEN.html There is also a strong literary and critical component to this author's work, as evidenced by the books mentioned and the work for the New Republic, Atlantic, and other literary publications with strong histories of publishing the country's most important voices. I'd love to convince you, but you're just one user, as am I, and hopefully this will come to a consensus one way or the other. I just took a previous user's comment as inspiration and googled the subject and found that USA today sent their reader's to Slate's 2002 "In Defense of the Viola," written by Adam Baer. Here's the link: http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/hipclicks/2002/2002-01-11-hipclicks.htm His thoughts on Apple Computer's iPhone marketing strategy was also recently quoted on the popular Web site Kottke.org here: http://www.kottke.org/07/01/iphone-roundup (scroll to the bottom). What, to you, would render this writer notable? Could he write for more publications? Be more influential in the field of patient advocacy, technology, or culture? These aren't sarcastic questions, but people outside the realm of publishing and academia should not on their own be able to verify whether or not a writer is notable--that is, if they aren't familiar with this field. The career speaks for itself. The recent cancer op-ed for the LA Times alone generated enough buzz around the media to turn Abraham Cherrix into a national story this past summer. This is a writer with an important hold on a number of subjects. I would urge you to consider Tony Fox's thoughtful comments above as well as those of the people who commented on the talk page. Here, too, are writings from the LA Times on this author:

Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times All Rights Reserved Los Angeles Times

August 5, 2006 Saturday Home Edition

SECTION: CALIFORNIA; Metro; Editorial Pages Desk; Part B; Pg. 16

LENGTH: 247 words

HEADLINE: Chemotherapy and the failure of war on cancer

BODY:

Re "A fight to say no to chemo," Opinion, July 29

Adam Baer's commentary heart-wrenchingly captures the dilemma faced by so many folks with life-threatening diseases who are treated by very imperfect and harsh regimens. Many of these harsh treatments cure people and are backed up by peer-reviewed studies in recognized medical journals. Even so-called alternative treatments are receiving scrutiny through a special institute created for this purpose at the National Institutes of Health.

Still, prisons in the United States house quacks who have hoodwinked people in their most desperate hours by promising cures using feel-good approaches. Unfortunately, the U.S. arm of the law cannot reach to other nations to cull out quacks who endanger the lives of our citizenry.

STEVEN B. OPPENHEIMER

\o7Director

Center for Cancer and

Developmental Biology

Cal State Northridge\f7

Thank you so much for publishing this valuable message. Every other day it seems we are bombarded with cancer walks, marathons and postage stamps, yet there is very little coverage of the failure of the war on cancer during the 35 years since it was declared.

This failure comes as no surprise to someone like me, who has watched a family member be blasted with radiation and chemotherapy, then die a few years later from another cancer caused by the treatment.

I can only advise others to question the medical hierarchy and not be afraid to just say no to these torturous, toxic treatments.

PAT DAVIS

\o7Woodland Hills

\f7

LOAD-DATE: August 5, 2006

Jrosen68 22:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First, the information shouldn't be pasted here. That's a lot of text that has little to do with the AfD discussion. Just keep your quotes on the page itself, and we can read them there.

Second, regarding your statement: Kesh, Do you alone have the power to save or delete this article? It seems like other people have a lot to say on this matter. So far, we have a comment from an IP user which does not address policies at all; my Delete reasoning; a Neutral comment from TonyFox; your comments regarding "importance" but not policies; and Mikebeef's comments that sources exist, but not where to find them.

AfD is a discussion about whether an article meets policy. Right now, myself and TonyFox are the only ones who have addressed this. It would be helpful if some other editors would weigh in on policy here but, without that, so far my Delete per WP:BIO seems to be the outstanding policy issue.

Finally, a letter to the editor does zero to establish notability. Anyone can write them, and the only filter is whether or not the editor wants to publish them in the paper. While I'm glad some folks found his articles useful, that does not in itself establish notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. -- Kesh 22:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

MikeBeef did say where to find them; I don't think most Wiki users have access to Lexis Nexis but that's one way to search those publications. Thanks for your thoughts, but Wikipedia's policy on this type of article obviously needs to be mindfully interpreted by someone with the literary and/or journalistic authority to make these decisions. Perhaps this is the reason for Larry Sanger's new Citizendium. An expert-led discussion would have quickly put this matter to bed. Lastly, letters to the editor do mean something when they're written by experts, such as, say, the director of cell biology at a major university.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jrosen68 (talk • contribs) 22:52, January 23, 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to bring up any changes you want in policy on the Village Pump. However, for the purposes of this AfD, we have to go by current policy. And Mikebeef's comments are not a proper citation, so that does not help us actually locate any reference material. As to your final comment, no, they still don't fulfill Wikipedia's verifiability policy. -- Kesh 23:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Kesh, I'm afraid you're wrong. The policies must be read and interpreted with more, deeper insight. But I appreciate your thoughts. As for whether or not MikeBeef provided citations of a specific kind, that's way less important than the fact that these verifiable sources exist and can be found with contemporary search databases. Jrosen68 01:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Trying to "read and interperet" the policies for "insight" is trying to game the system. The policies are what they are. Further, Mikebeef can claim they exist, but without properly cited references, it doesn't mean we can use them in any meaningful manner. The burden of proof is on those wanting to make claims in the article. If they can be found, please find them and cite them in the article. -- Kesh 02:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No. No one is trying to game the system. No one has to. This subject would not be such a notable writer with so many avenues of influence if he didn't have all this quantifiable success in his field. Many notable publications and articles of note as well as verifiable sources have been cited. If they don't fit into your rubric, you can fix them. In the end, you're simply saying that you don't find this author important, and that's your opinion, as you noted above. The facts speak for themselves. Jrosen68 17:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Mr. Baer has written a goodly number of articles for various magazines, papers, and journals. What would it take for someone like this to "achieve notability"? Do you want someone to insert links to every article he's ever written in order to prove notability? One simply has to visit his website (www.glassshallot.com) to link to the articles he's written. NYT, LA Times, Travel and Leisure, etc. -- these are all pretty notable publications, no? 156.145.192.64 18:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)claire — 156.145.192.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The fact remains: the publications are notable, but simply publishing articles in them does not make Mr. Baer himself notable. -- Kesh 18:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Kesh, I'm pretty sure that if you published something in any of those publications, it'd be notable. Publishing an article in a newspaper/magazine of note is not an easy task. The fact that Mr. Baer has been published in them multiple times lends credence to his notability. This is not just one-off letters to the editor. Mr. Baer is an accomplished journalist and writer. This debate has gotten a little absurd. He is notable. End of Discussion. 156.145.192.64 19:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)claire

The following was posted into the article in question; I moved it to the talk page, and am pasting it here as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this debate while and I wanted to contribute as the answer is clear to me.I believe that writers for highly regarded publications, who themselves become highly regarded from their journalistic work and published books should be considered notable. Since the wikipedia policy doesn't really address the definition of notable, why should we not give credit to the true work horses of information dissemination? Adam Baer had been appeared in virtually every publication I pick up, such as USA Today, LA times, NY Times, Arts & Letters Daily just to name a few. I believe his work is notable and important. Kesh appears to have one definition of notable while wikipedia has another--who's the real boss here? Is Kesh notable? Why does Kesh get to determine what entries get deleted and what remains? As a psychologist and researcher, it is simply bad science to reject information based on this one source. Leave the entry, Mr. Baer is notable. Case closed. LMDorazio 18:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC) USC Keck School of Medical — LMDorazio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Frankly, we're still lacking outside references to the author himself outside of his publishing credits. Journalists, especially freelancers, as I said before are tough to sort out. Kesh is an editor, same as everyone else, and the community has the ability to contribute in these debates. It's really going to be up to the closing administrator to decide what happens on this one. (If it is kept, the article needs serious, major work to be acceptable encyclopedic standard.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As noted, the references exist and are findable in well-known databases that cannot be linked to (i.e. it costs money to join something like Nexis). Also, it's important to note that the subject is a *staff* correspondent for a major magazine (Travel + Leisure, owned by American Express Publishing) as well as a well-known essayist with top-selling book credits, and freelance journalist for other notable publications.Jrosen68 20:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not they can be linked to, they can be cited. That needs to be done. Further, you cannot use articles written by Adam Baer himself to establish notability. Wikipedia does not rely on primary sources: see WP:CITE. We need articles/references about Mr. Baer or reviews of his work to establish notability. -- Kesh 22:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Reviews of prominent reviewers. Ok, that happens all the time. Sounds as if you need to acquaint yourself with how people like this become prominent, and what their work means to the world. As for articles and refences, they have been pointed out. You can take the time to cite them in your specific way if you'd like to improve this article. Wikipedia should rely on primary sources when it comes to people who work in this and other similar profession. Read the comments above from notable researchers and others. These are people who work in academia. They know what true notability means, and how to achieve it. If you're so confident that the policies you cite are powerful and bizarre enough to keep this subject from being written about here, you would stop contributing to this dialogue. If you were an expert in writing, journalism, or publishing, and you felt that the subject wasn't important, that would be another story. You are not, and that's why can state arcane and unimportant rules all you want, but in the end logic and expertise will win. If not here then somewhere that matters more. Jrosen68 23:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. Does not estabilish notability, no verifiable sources given22mon 01:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC) — 22mon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep per WP:BIO. Does establish notability, plenty of verifiable sources given, from Los Angeles Times and USA Today to Arts and Letters Daily and other major American newspapers and magazines. Jrosen68 03:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup - please, clean it up! --ElKevbo 23:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - agree with above comments that writing a lot of things in many notable publications makes him notable even if lots of things haven't necessarily been written directly about him. But, yes, please clean up! Hard to read as is! Plymouths 10:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep borderline notability, requires clean up. Addhoc 13:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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.