Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Sokol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Nom. withdrawn. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Sokol

Jason Sokol (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Does not appear to pass the professor test. Less than 1,000 Ghits, mostly relating to his one published book. I am also nominating the page for his book:

There Goes My Everything (book) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Notability on both counts established below. Withdrawing nomination. Lyrl Talk C 16:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Lyrl Talk C 04:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unless notability established per Wikipedia:Notability (academics). CyberAnth 04:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all - no evidence of meeting WP:PROF. MER-C 07:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: One published book is good enough for me. Article needs more detail. Atom 13:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:PROF, unverifiable. Terence Ong 15:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for the author, delete the book. WaPo's Yardley called it one of the ten best of 2006. [1], and it did receive a full-size (though not as favorable) review in the NYT.[2] --Dhartung | Talk 21:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Bad faith Confusing nomination proposal! Where in the world did the nominator get the 1000 G-hit criterion? --Kevin Murray 21:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The following is a quote from Wikipedia:Search engine test: Hence the list of unique results will always contain fewer than 1000 results regardless of how many webpages actually matched the search terms. The nominator should read the guidelines. --Kevin Murray 21:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The section Kevin Murray quoted was about "unique hits", and gave as an example the 827 "unique hits" Google identifies with the search term "microsoft" [7]. Note, however, that there are 534,000,000 total hits for the search term "microsoft".
For the search term "Jason Sokol", there are 846 total hits, of which Google deems 263 to be unique [8]. Which is certainly not a criteria for deletion, and I did not intend it that way. My reason for the deletion nomination is non-notability, which I stated in my first sentence, with a link to the relevant notability guideline. My reference to search engine results was intended to show that I have not just nominated the article for not asserting notability, but have myself tried to find sources that would establish him as notable. I further explain that I do not find the search engine results to establish notability for the author because they are mostly publicity for his one book, thus failing the "multiple, independent, non-trivial" sources criterion.
  • I agree that the term "bad faith" was inappropriate. I should have said confusing or inaccurate. However, your further explanation makes your intent much clearer. Proposing another authors work for deletion is serious business and the grounds should be clearly stated. It can be inferred from your nomination that 1000 g-hits is some type of critical threshold, and this can be misinterpreted by newer editors seeking easy to understand precedents. --Kevin Murray 01:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I find Dhartung's arguments to be persuasive and something I can learn from, and that would possibly change my mind. I'm confused about the assertations of a bad-faith nomination, though. Lyrl Talk C 22:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see this as bad-faith, either. The assertion was a failure of the WP:PROF notability guideline, certainly reasonable under the circumstances. --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Dhartung. --Haemo 00:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Question Dhartung has established notability of the book (subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews per WP:BK). To me, this would mean the book article should be kept, but the author still seems to fail WP:BIO and WP:PROF. But Dhartung voted for the opposite - to keep the author, but delete the book. Any clarification of what would be the correct course of action? Lyrl Talk C 02:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The book article is stubby, in other words, may be easily merged with the author article. It's more normal for us to have articles on authors than on their books (I would argue that the book is not an exceptional case, more important than its author). If he writes another book, we only have to expand the article. If the book article were a researched article on the book's impact and responses to it and so on and so forth, then it would be appropriate for the book to have its own article (see Guns, Germs, and Steel, for example). --Dhartung | Talk 12:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Or you could put it in music terms: We don't have articles on albums where we don't have articles on the musicians. They're treated as subarticles of the musician article. The works establish the notability of the authors in both cases. --Dhartung | Talk 12:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added (in the article about the book) links to reviews of the book in three major American newspapers (New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle and Washington Post), which does set the book somewhat above the crowd of published books. I think that the book is at least borderline notable. I'm not sure that the notability is enough to justify an article about the author, however. -- Donald Albury 14:45, 7 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.