Talk:Eric Goldman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article was nominated for deletion on December 18, 2006. The result of the discussion was KEEP (no consensus).

[edit] Notability

I notice the article has been tagged with {{importance}}. I've added a [citation needed] tag to the line stating that the subject is a "noted scholar". We need a reliable source for this, from independent media outside of his own personal website, which is all that is currently provided. A suitable source for that statement may be enough to remove {{importance}}; if not, the article may have to be proposed for deletion – Gurch 01:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Eric Goldman here. Not 100% how a person proves that he is noted (or not). Consider, for example, Pike & Fischer Internet Law & Regulation, Oct 27, 2006, which says "Amici File Brief. Three Internet law heavyweights­David Post, Eric Goldman, and Scott Christie ­filed a friend-of-the-court brief "in Support of Neither Party" on Sept. 11." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.88.215 (talk • contribs)

You prove it by doing a google search that the administrator adding the [citation needed] tag should have done before reflexively adding the tag in true bureaucratic style. [1] published articles in 5 law reviews/journals and at least 1 peer reviewed commercial publication. [2] significant appointment at a law school ranked in the top ten law schools in IP law according to US News and World Reports rankings. Notability is not celebrity. DrWitty 17:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A google search for "Eric Goldman" gives: 1-5: ericgoldman.org, 6 and 7: his employers, 8: wikipedia, 9: tv.ign.com?, 10: www.blogger.com. So Google would suggest his notability comes from blogging, rather than being a "noted scholar".

and anyway, if for some reason wikipedia did "fall" and become unpopular and unused, wouldn't then its "attackers" eventually lose interest, since nobody uses it, and then the faithful editors would come back and be able to restore things again? it's not like the attackers can actually remove content permanently.. 131.111.8.102 12:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall specifying only the first 10 search results. Google is only useful because new-entries 19-20 point to the Social Sciences Research Network, which lists the aforementioned research articles published in the non-vanity academic press. Again, notability is not celebrity. I did not point to Google. I pointed to the man's published work and position. DrWitty 02:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Notability (people). -- Jeandré, 2006-12-13t20:00z

Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Notability (people) are a proposal and a guideline, not policy. The test is "whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies)." Nobody has argued NPOV, original research, or that they cannot verify that the argument was made. The Information Week reporting and Signpost entry pretty much seal the deal. DrWitty 02:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

He was featured in the Wikipedia Signpost for this week. Sharkface217 00:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-12-11/In the news. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-13t20:00z

I agree this entry fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Goldman may have some WP-internal notability, so that a mention in Wikipedia: namespace (Signpost) is surely warranted. Appearing in WP Signpost goes nowhere towards establishing notability for article namespace. His prediction may also be mentioned on Criticism of Wikipedia: the Information Week article is just about sufficient to warrant that. But I see nothing that would justify a dedicated biographical article. We don't create new biographical articles merely because somebody is mentioned in Information Week. dab (𒁳) 11:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)