Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Leistner
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Very reasonable arguments are made on both sides, but clearly there is no consensus to delete. I'm not quite sure what's going on in this diff, but it doesn't seem to be materially subversive, and there's no evidence of such elsewhere in the history. -Splash - tk 13:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ken Leistner
(Originally nominated by FRCP11 as part of a combined nomination with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinosaur Training. Split into separate discussion by Dsreyn). Dpbsmith (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Well-known within the strength training arena, columnist for several magazines (Hardgainer, Milo, Powerlifting USA and others). c 02:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Hardgainer (magazine) and Milo magazine may merit deletion; neither appear notable. I leave this to others. -- FRCP11 03:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Kind of curious on what basis you have determined that these magazines are not notable. They're notable to people in the weight-training community. Dsreyn 03:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Article does not evidence that he meets criteria for WP:BIO. Claim of "well-known" not verified; columnist for non-notable magazines does not create notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinosaur Training, where there were a number of other Delete votes. -- FRCP11 03:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Changing vote to Weak delete, given earlier lack of consensus for other deletions in this area. There may be a case to be made for Leistner's notability, but the current article doesn't do it in any verifiable way. Google searches show that he's trained some NFL football players.[1] On the other hand, is there ever any such thing as a notable chiropractor? -- FRCP11 21:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Leistner is a chiropracter, but I think the article is fairly clearly emphasizing that his notability is in strength training. fbb_fan 01:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per FRCP11. No obvious book publication; Google Books turns up a handful of mentions, but nothing like Kubik's twenty-page chapter. Nothing presented yet that convinces me that this person meets the standards of WP:BIO#People still living. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Keep. He wrote a chapter for Maximize Your Training (edited by Matt Brzycki; McGraw-Hill, 1999; available from Amazon). Was also a monthly columnist for Powerlifting USA from February, 1979 through November, 2000, has had a column in every issue of Milo since the first (April, 1993), and was a long-time columnist for Hardgainer.
-
- Also, repeating what I posted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooks Kubik (second nomination) from Wikipedia:Importance because it seems relevant here also:
- An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:
- 1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community). fbb_fan 18:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. - Nick C (Review Me!) 17:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Dpbsmith. MCB 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per Dsreyn. Additionally
- WP::BIO states "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy"
- Agreed, there is not much information on the page right now; the word for that is "stub". I started the page because I read lots of references to Ken Leistner in various places and could not find a food source of information, so decided that starting a stub in Wikipedia would be a good way to cause
- The "no such thing as a famous chiropractor" is a cheap shot. Leistner is not noteworthy because he's a chiropractor, but because of his writing.
- fbb_fan makes an excellent point: Leistner is well known within the community. The fact that he is not well known outside of those in the know is not an argument for deletion - it's an argument for the article existing! Tjic 01:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment. If it's a cheap shot, it's that of the editors of the article, who thought that Leistner's status as a chiropractor was such a noteworthy part of who he was that they made it the first thing in the article as of the date I write this comment. If Leistner is notable for something else, then that, rather than his chiropracty practice, should be the first thing in the article. Like I said, he could be notable, but the article as currently written doesn't make that case. How long do we have to keep the stub waiting for someone aware of Leistner's supposed notability to demonstrate it through an effective edit? As it is, the only articles linking to the Leistner article are of questionable notability themselves. -- FRCP11 04:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. If your objection to the article is the position of the chiropracter mention, perhaps a better solution might be to edit the article to come up with a more appropriate ordering, rather than deleting the article. Anyone can edit, after all, so feel free to change it (or at least discuss it on the discussion page). Though as I mentioned previously, if you read the entire article (which isn't that long, as you have observed), it's clear that his notability lies elsewhere. fbb_fan 10:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. My objection to the article is that it describes someone who isn't notable. Someone complained that I described Leistner as a chiropractor, and I simply noted that what I know about Leistner I know from the article written by his fans. I have no desire to edit an article about someone whose fans aren't even willing to make a persuasive verifiable case about his notability. What I see so far is a chiropractor/personal trainer who writes a column for a non-notable magazine and co-owned a gym for six years. By that standard, I could include a hundred Harvard Law Review editors who've invested in their spouses' retail establishments. A couple of posters insist that he's "well-known in the community," but no one provides a cite for that, so it flunks WP:NOR: personal experience doesn't bootstrap someone, and I haven't written a Wikipedia article about Ron Stone just because he's my second-favorite local newscaster from my youth. (I edited this entry after Dsreyn's responsive comment below, but it doesn't materially affect his comment.) -- FRCP11 14:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- There was a "cite" for it already. It was noted that he was a regular columnist for Powerlifting USA for 20+ years, has had a regular column in Milo for 13 years, was a columnist for Hardgainer, etc. It's not "personal experience" to mention these things. Dsreyn 14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The guy who writes the column at the back of D.C. Lawyer magazine (circulation tens of thousands) for the last twenty years isn't notable, because even if the magazine is notable (and no editor yet thinks it's notable enough for its own entry), the columns aren't. Lots of non-notable poker players write columns for
non-notableapparently notable poker magazines likeCardPlayerCard Player Magazine. Shouting to the rooftops that someone writes for a magazine whose own notability is in question is simply proving my point. Lots of dreck gets published because it's cheap to publish magazines that are mostly advertising. What stories did these magazines (and more importantly to this discussion, Leistner) break? What was their circulation? Were Leistner's columns advertised as a reason to buy the magazine? -- FRCP11 14:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)- Comment. Saying that the notability of these magazines in question is rather disingenuous, since you seem to be the only one questioning their notability at the moment. As far as advertising, Milo has none other than the inside and back covers, and Hardgainer had virtually none (a page or two per issue), so your claim that "it's cheap to publish magazines that are mostly advertising" doesn't apply to either. Dsreyn 16:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Please assume good faith. The notability of Milo magazine and Hardgainer (magazine) and the red-linked Powerlifting USA is legitimately questionable, especially given the failure of its supporters to demonstrate otherwise in response to my questions. If you want lots of people questioning their notability instead of just me, I can put them through the AfD process instead of just putting up an importance tag, and you would see lots of Delete votes. I'm doing you a favor by giving the two or three supporters a chance to fix the articles. -- FRCP11 17:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Saying that the notability of these magazines in question is rather disingenuous, since you seem to be the only one questioning their notability at the moment. As far as advertising, Milo has none other than the inside and back covers, and Hardgainer had virtually none (a page or two per issue), so your claim that "it's cheap to publish magazines that are mostly advertising" doesn't apply to either. Dsreyn 16:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The guy who writes the column at the back of D.C. Lawyer magazine (circulation tens of thousands) for the last twenty years isn't notable, because even if the magazine is notable (and no editor yet thinks it's notable enough for its own entry), the columns aren't. Lots of non-notable poker players write columns for
- There was a "cite" for it already. It was noted that he was a regular columnist for Powerlifting USA for 20+ years, has had a regular column in Milo for 13 years, was a columnist for Hardgainer, etc. It's not "personal experience" to mention these things. Dsreyn 14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. My objection to the article is that it describes someone who isn't notable. Someone complained that I described Leistner as a chiropractor, and I simply noted that what I know about Leistner I know from the article written by his fans. I have no desire to edit an article about someone whose fans aren't even willing to make a persuasive verifiable case about his notability. What I see so far is a chiropractor/personal trainer who writes a column for a non-notable magazine and co-owned a gym for six years. By that standard, I could include a hundred Harvard Law Review editors who've invested in their spouses' retail establishments. A couple of posters insist that he's "well-known in the community," but no one provides a cite for that, so it flunks WP:NOR: personal experience doesn't bootstrap someone, and I haven't written a Wikipedia article about Ron Stone just because he's my second-favorite local newscaster from my youth. (I edited this entry after Dsreyn's responsive comment below, but it doesn't materially affect his comment.) -- FRCP11 14:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. If your objection to the article is the position of the chiropracter mention, perhaps a better solution might be to edit the article to come up with a more appropriate ordering, rather than deleting the article. Anyone can edit, after all, so feel free to change it (or at least discuss it on the discussion page). Though as I mentioned previously, if you read the entire article (which isn't that long, as you have observed), it's clear that his notability lies elsewhere. fbb_fan 10:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. If it's a cheap shot, it's that of the editors of the article, who thought that Leistner's status as a chiropractor was such a noteworthy part of who he was that they made it the first thing in the article as of the date I write this comment. If Leistner is notable for something else, then that, rather than his chiropracty practice, should be the first thing in the article. Like I said, he could be notable, but the article as currently written doesn't make that case. How long do we have to keep the stub waiting for someone aware of Leistner's supposed notability to demonstrate it through an effective edit? As it is, the only articles linking to the Leistner article are of questionable notability themselves. -- FRCP11 04:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep. Somewhat notable, and certainly more notable than much of the fancruft, schoolcruft and sportscruft that I see all over the place. GeorgeStepanek\talk 11:24, 4 June 2006 (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.
