Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Lerner

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 no consensus Guettarda 19:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Lerner

Paul Lerner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable author in US intellectual property law. Fails WP:BIO. Two books and one interview are probably not enough. Edcolins 13:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, besides WP:BIO there are other aspects to be considered Alf photoman 00:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please can you explain which are the other aspects to be considered. Maybe we should update WP:BIO to reflect this? --Edcolins 14:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep the publications listed are enough, if they are widely used. a little more evidence is needed, but not reason to think it will not meet N.DGG 04:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, he is a notable author in his field and many references are included in the article and the talk page. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The references provided also include multiple independent reviews of his book which is the clear criteria in WP:BIO. This was shown to Edcolins on the talk page of the article nearly 2 weeks ago. I'm not sure why he awakened now with his claim that this is not enough. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • On the talk page, I have not said the references were enough to me. I have just asked for more references. I am not convinced yet this person is notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. In the business field where the media coverage is usually important (to attract potential clients), the criterion for notability may need to be higher IMHO. --Edcolins 22:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added one more source on the talk page, His book is quoted twice in testimony given by Pat Choate to the The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission [1] --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I also just added a link to the Russian version of the book at http://www.dialektika.com/books/5-8459-0636-9.html . As I'm sure you are aware, not every book gets translated into another language. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly it was translated into Russian because the co-author (Poltorak) is from Russia? It doesn't mean anyone is reading it there. The amazon.com sales rank for the english version is 272,182.

This page has esentially no content other than what can be found on the bio pages on the websites of the subject's companies (GPC and GPCI, which both appear to be 2-3 person companies). Apparently these companies have also recently had Wikipedia articles created solely by PinchasC; they appear to also be generally sourced from the corporate websites, and fall into the realm of using wikipedia for advertising. Emcee 22:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for not meeting WP:BIO.

1. PinchasC should have identified himself on this AfD page as the creator and primary author of this article.
2. PinchasC claims that there are multiple independent reviews of his book. There are not. The "reviews" on the publisher's page (Wiley and Sons) are basically promotional blurbs, likely from associates of the authors, as you would see on the back of the book jacket. In fact, at least one of these is on the back of the book jacket. I am an IP professional and I own this book, and it is not a seminal work in the field. The other "review" (the pdf from SSTLR) is not so much a review as a chapter-by-chapter topic summary. There is no analysis or criticism in this document. I have not seen what I would consider to be a single independent review of the book, in the spirit of what is intended by WP:BIO. E.g., a critical review of at least a few paragraphs in length from a reputable newspaper or periodical.

Emcee 19:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIO does not say that a newspaper has to have given the review. The reviews given are by many people and they are considered to be independent reviews. If you have further analysis or criticism, you can add it to the document, however lack of it is not a reason to delete. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that it did. WP:BIO is a guideline; to follow the spirit of the guideline we have to determine for ourselves what is meant by an "independent review." I don't consider a (probably solicited) promotional blurb found on the publisher's website to be an independent review. I don't consider a chapter summary with no analytical content to be a review. I consider a critical review of at least a few paragraphs in length from a reputable newspaper or periodical to be a reasonable minimum standard for what is meant by an "independent review," and I think most other WP editors would probably agree. This article has failed to provide that, so I re-assert my vote to Delete.Emcee 04:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

So I guess we disagree, whether the publisher publishing a review makes it non independent or not. I would respectfully disagree and say that even if a publisher publishes the review, if the review was by someone other than the publisher, than it is an independent review. So I re-assert my vote to Strong Keep. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that WP:RS and WP:IS also disagree with your POV. The liner notes of a music album are typically written by someone other than the musician or producer, but that would rarely be considered an independent review of the album's contents -- the publisher and artist solicit someone whom they know will give a favorable description for the consumer. Likewise, these promotional blurbs published on the back of the book jacket are not "independent reviews".

To put this article in a bit of perspective: PinchasC is currently the creator and ONLY editor, other than EdColins (who nominated for deletion), not counting a style bot and one random editor who removed "Mr." before the subject's name.Emcee 10:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As you wrote above, you own this book and only one of these are printed on the book. So I guess that would kind of prove yourr point wrong. Nowhere in WP:RS or WP:IS does it say what you are saying, and my point from above stands that although the publisher put these reviews on their site, the reviews were by someone other than the publisher and therefore independent. Additionally, this that I am the only editor of the article is not a criteria for deletion, and I'm not sure your point of bringing this up in all your comments. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I own the paperback version of this book; all three promotional blurbs on its book jacket are shown here. The link that you furnished has the promotional blurbs for the e-book, shown here. Since it's an electronic book, I would consider these blurbs on the publisher's website for the ebook to be on its electronic book jacket. It's published by the same publisher for the same reasons as a book jacket, regardless.

The reason why I bring up your relationship to this article as the creator and only editor is:

1. Good Wikietiquette for an AfD discussion requires that you disclose whether you are the primary author and whether you have other vested interest in the article.
2. I believe there may be some ownership issues in play, and I think it's useful to those commenting or voting on the AfD to be aware of it. Along those lines, the rationale for the notability requirement says, "In order to have a neutral article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors."

It comes down to this: promotional blurbs are not reviews, and a publisher's site is not an independent or reliable source for unbiased book reviews. WP:RS and WP:IS are indeed relevant, as is WP:N, especially where it says: "The "independence" qualification excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works affiliated with the subject, its creators, or others with a vested interest or bias."

The farther this goes, the more convinced I am that this subject is not notable. If there were existing independent reviews, they would have been produced by now, rather than having to defend such weak support. You would be hard-pressed to find any book today that does not come with the support of its publisher and a few short promotional blurbs; having these does not make the work an important one, nor does it make its subject notable. Emcee 11:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The reviews under the reviews section are not printed on the book, only the ones in the description section. I hope you understand this distinction. You have not shown how these review would not conform with WP:N, you are just quoting sentences without showing relevance. Proving that an article or person is notable does not violate WP:OWN, I suggest you re-read this guideline together with the other guidelines that you seem to be interpreting to fit your viewpoint. I forgot to mention that I was the creator and primary editor of this article, but you did point it out so that took care of that. Continuing to use that as an argument for deletion shows a gross misunderstanding of the policies and guidelines. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't in fact understand the distinction -- especially since the quote by Lawrence Udell is under both tabs, of "description" and "reviews". Can you explain what differentiates these "review" blurbs from the "description" blurbs? In length and content they appear very much the same.

I think I've described quite enough for you on the relevant policies; if you choose to continue to deny their spirit and relevance, go right ahead. Emcee 19:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the independent reference I brought above today, where the book was quoted in testimony by Pat Choate to the The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission and the Russian translation. Regarding the other references, we can agree to disagree. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Those brief citations by Choate and the Russian translation (presumably by the Russian co-author) do not add much to Lerner's notability. I suppose you can't explain the difference between the "description" book jacket blurbs and the "review" blurbs either. Emcee 22:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable as per Edcolins ---Harris 14:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be a notable enough author. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Lerner is well-known in the industry, both for his books and for the famous In re Zahn case, which he successfuly argued before CAFC. Notable enough. --patent guru 22:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be a totally ordinary lawyer with a couple articles in print and a book. Like all of them Mateo LeFou 22:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to cite reliable secondary sources, necessary to pass WP:N. Seraphimblade 15:31, 2 February 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.