Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/André Aciman


 * 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. JForget 13:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

André Aciman

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Request by subject because it fails as a biography and is doing more harm than good. Fails wp:PROF and wp:AUTHOR, tho see talk page for editors who disagree. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-16t22:19z 22:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article would normally survive AfD as subject's works have been given full-length reviews in major publications (LA Times, The Guardian), and the subject has received a reasonable amount of note. No view on the competing tensions between what (despite coverage) is relatively minor notability and privacy considerations. Bongo  matic  22:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Unquestionably meets three criteria: WP:PROF--Distinguished professor at CUNY; WP:CREATIVE, NYT SIgnificant book of the year and another award   WP:BIO: Sufficient sourcing about him in to meet GNG. How that makes for minor notability I do not know. What his privacy requirements may be I do not know either, since the article seem exceptionally matter of fact. the only remotely personal information is taken from a published interview he gave. Let's face it, if the NYT gives you an article, and multiple major papers give you reviews of your books, and people give you significant awards, you'll be in Wikipedia.  What the OTRS request is about is something I have no access to. If there is some factor I do not understand, anyone who does know what it is invited to email me in confidence. Its time we removed the rule that subjects preferences can be accepted, if it produces nonsense like this. A   public career, and nothing to be ashamed of in the least. An assertion of privacy is absurd: those who want to be unknown usually don't try to publish their memoirs.  DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Distinguished Professor" was added but the ref doesn't mention it. I don't see what's being referred to in WP:CREATIVE/wp:AUTHOR; or wp:bio since the only major wp:rs is an unlinked NYT mention (not a biographical article) of a minor award (there are however NYT refs mentioned in the talk page tho no information is sourced to them yet). The worldcat source also doesn't mention the information it's referencing. The OTRS ticket is about unsourced and incorrect information not being noticed and removed. Encyclopedically notable articles would probably have had the incorrect information deleted without the person having to try to delete it themselves several times (and having their edits reverted despite wp:burden), and eventually having to email the foundation to get rid of it. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-17t11:53z
 * what information in the article is is asserted to be incorrect?   DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Subject; influences; influenced; family; photo; incorrect, poor, or no sources. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-17t21:47z
 * the source for distinguished professor is his official bio at the university, a suitable source for the purpose.   DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference was pointing elsewhere - I've fixed it, but I haven't touched the 850 bit. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-17t21:47z
 * Keep. I agree completely with DGG, including the puzzlement about what was so offending here. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with DGG. The sourcing that is in the article right now does not demonstrate that Aciman meets the GNG.  Remember the requirement that sources must be independent of the subject: the CUNY profile, the "meet the author" piece, the Wesleyan article based on interviewing the subject, and Aciman's memoir itself don't count.  Likewise, the NY Times opinion pieces written by, not about, Aciman, which got Shamwow so excited on the article's talk page, are useless here.  As Jeandre suggests, DGG is also wrong when he says the New York Times "gave" Aciman an article.  I am looking at that reference now, and it is a list of Whiting award winners that says nothing about Aciman beyond that.  No doubt the award is a fine achievement, but notability is not achievement.  Finally, book reviews would help to write a Wikipedia article about the respective books, not necessarily about Aciman. The bottom line is that without independent sources that are actually about Aciman, it is not possible to write a neutral article here.  Indeed, the article essentially amounts to a resume for Aciman hosted on Wikipedia, subject to original-research embellishments like "his novel is in over 850 Worldcat libraries".  A list of books he wrote and a recounting of his career path and achievements is the stuff of resumes, not encyclopedia articles.  Drmies, perhaps that is what offends Aciman.  Let Aciman decide on his own what to put on his CV.  Let CUNY host a webpage highlighting his achievements.  But a Wikipedia article requires significant, independent coverage of him. I recommend that participants in this afd read Nil Einne's well-researched, thoughtful comment on the article's talk page.  160.39.213.97 (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that DGG meant to refer to this,, a 2000+ word lecture by Aciman on James Joyce, Bloomsday 2004? Drmies (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I see it now; it's this--. An op-ed piece in the New York Times. Sounds notable. I've been adding stuff to the article and cleaning up the references but I'm going to stop (after adding a review from the NYT of Call Me By Your Name): there is a huge amount of reliable sources for anyone who is willing to look. The MLA database actually lists four articles in literary journals about his work, and that, for a living author, is not bad. I mean, this discussion is getting ridiculous. Any editor who looks at the article will see that with a couple of books, published by major presses and reviewed in major papers, this subject as notable at least as an author. To the IP who spent so much time throwing nit-picked policy at DGG: enough already, it's not convincing. A resounding keep for this article that even in its history, as far as I have seen, has nothing that disparages the subject. I can't believe we've spent so much time on this. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added the four hits from the MLA to the talk page, for future reference. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * that it is in over 850 worldcat libraries is specifically sourced, and not OR. The official web page at a university is a proper source for noncontroversial bio. WP:CREATIVE is an alternate to WP:BIO. so is WP:PROF. Further sources than those that demonstrate the achievements are not required.   DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The worldcat source doesn't mention 850. Until someone specifically challenges the University sources, I think they're okay. How does he qualify for anything in wp:CREATIVE or wp:PROF ? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-17t21:47z
 * WorldCat Identities is the source for holdings of all his books "Out of Egypt : a memoir by André Aciman( Book )

17 editions published between 1994 and 2007 in English and held by 863 libraries worldwide " and "Call me by your name by André Aciman( Book ) 5 editions published between 2007 and 2009 in English and held by 961 libraries worldwide " absolutely solid evidence (my 850 figure did not include all the possible editions).    DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (@ DGG) My concern is not with verifiability but neutrality. NPOV requires "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."  So where are the disinterested sources on Aciman?  Without those, a neutral article is not possible.  Using CUNY's webpage as a source already makes the article resume-like, and the over-850 factoid only exacerbates the problem (it is a Wikipedia editor's own observation of Aciman's achievement, which should go on his CV--if he wants it there).  Wp:prof's criteria are quite malleable (Jeandre seems to doubt they apply here) and in any event are a poor proxy for the gold standard at wp:n.  Disregard the gold standard if you want in other cases, but in a BLP, especially where the subject has requested deletion, Wikipedia should meet that standard. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, not marginal notability at all, easily passes GNG. If subject has concerns, he is welcome to make them clear on the talk page.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which of the sources qualify per wp:GNG? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-18t10:43z
 * Many of the 312 results from the GNews search linked above would work just fine. Sure, for some of those he is the author, but for many he is not.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Lots of sources out there, hundreds of gnews, gbooks hits. Among other points, reviews of his books qualify him under WP:AUTHOR, and are perfectly acceptable as sources for an article on him. As the most famous book is a memoir, biographical detail (from reviews) is not lacking and privacy concerns are thus minimal.John Z (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How does he qualify for anything in WP:AUTHOR? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-18t10:43z
 * WP:Author #3 - "... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Answering  160..., although neutral sourcing is not necessary, as we work all the time to present non-neutral sources and views neutrally, these reviews are reasonably neutral sources.John Z (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, looks OK to me. Is there no process for asking the complainant on the OTRS ticket whether he/she now withdraws the objection? - Pointillist (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Subject again asked for it to be deleted on 2009-09-17 after the prod was undone. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-18t10:43z
 * Keep -- I believe the precedent for considering requests by the subject of the article to have the article deleted is that the request is only considered when the individual in question is on the boundary of notability. My understanding is that when a person is clearly a public figure, worthy of coverage, a request from the principal to have their article removed is politely declined.  Achman is clearly notable, so this request we are told he made should be politely declined.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to ask whether those who deal with OTRS tickets shouldn't feel free to use their own judgment on requests for the deletion of articles by clearly notable individuals, and skip the step of initiating an afd, and simply tell them, "sorry, we only consider requests for the deletion of articles from individuals who haven't chosen to become public figures." They could leave a note on the article's talk page however.  Geo Swan (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the time we do, and then point to policies why it can/can't be deleted; but no sources support keeping the article per WP:CREATIVE/wp:AUTHOR, wp:bio, or wp:GNG. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-18t10:43z
 * the prizes don't support it?   DGG ( talk ) 14:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Geo Swan: as per Jeandré, we do not always make an automatic AFD for these. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is good to know. I started an article about an author who was an expert on counter-terrorism, a law professor at the Coast Guard Academy -- and and also an active NCIS agent.  A month or so later I found the article had been silently deleted.  The administrator who deleted it told me he or she did so in response to an OTRS ticket from the subject of the article.  The subject of the article had told him or her that he didn't have any problems with the article being inaccurate -- he just didn't want to be covered by the wikipedia.  The administrator told me that their interpretation of the mandate of those who process OTRS tickets is that they were authorized to delete articles, on sight, and without informing those who had worked on the article, in response to an OTRS ticket -- when they thought the subject of the article was of marginal notability.  So, was this administrator misinterpreting the OTRS rules?  Geo Swan (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Aciman is not really notable for his professorial career but as a novelist/writer. His memoir Out of Egypt was reviewed in The New York Times as well as his novel Call Me by Your Name. Additionally, see his recent op-ed published in the Times. This alone shows that this individual is QUITE notable.ShamWow (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See 160's comment above. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-18t10:43z
 * Keep. Subject is too distinguished a public figure not to have an entry in WP. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment. Please remove the WorldCat count ("850 WorldCat libraries") from the article. Inclusion of bibliometrics (WorldCat counts, citation counts of research articles, etc.) is bad form for a whole bunch of reasons, including giving the perception that proponents are "trying too hard" to establish notability and that these numbers constantly change, requiring some amount of vigilance in manually checking/updating them at perhaps very frequent intervals. In short, you might say that bibliometrics are not particularly "encyclopedic" and it is arguably a bad precedent to start making them a regular part of articles. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC).
 * I've removed the WorldCat count - Pointillist (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. That said, it would seem the subject is notable. Others have already found that there are plentiful sources, but his title/position at the CUNY satisfies WP:PROF #5 – person holds ... "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education, and would alone be sufficient. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC).
 * I was wrong, he does qualify per the wp:PROF guideline. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-18t20:21z
 * Heartfelt congratulations, Jeandré du Toit, for jumping that hurdle. Can the AfD now be closed on that basis? - Pointillist (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * /raises hand, offers objection./ Wp:prof is a collection of purely formal (as opposed to functional) criteria.  They have nothing to say about whether a neutral article can actually be written here.  The latter question is dispositive. So, getting back to discussing that more relevant question: you said above the article "looks OK" even now.  Would you like to elaborate on why you think an article based on non-neutral sources is appropriate for Wikipedia?  160.39.213.97 (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * AFAIK both the New York Times and http://www.marinij.com/ are reliable sources, aren't they? The dispositive question was addressed to Jeandré du Toit on the basis that s/he was the AfD nominator and I thought there was a process for the nom to close. If I'm in error in either respect please do explain: I have no axe to grind. - Pointillist (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you had an ax to grind. I genuinely wanted you to clarify your earlier comment.  To respond on that issue:  No New York Times article has yet been produced, here, that is actually about Aciman.  And the Marin piece is an interview and thus not independent.  I already discussed these and other purported sources in my comment above.  As for the procedural issue, an afd can only be closed early if the nom has changed his mind and no one else is arguing to delete.  160.39.213.97 (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. Well, right now there are 12 !votes to keep and apparently no !votes to delete (unless you intend yours of 16:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC) to be a !vote—you might want to clarify that). I haven't !voted but I expect he will turn out to be sufficiently notable under Notability (academics) anyway. That seems to be the conclusion the nominator reached, too. - Pointillist (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Aciman is a major American writer. The hundreds of reviews of his books contain ample information to produce a neutral article, even if no further material is available....While privacy concerns *may* be a legitimate basis for removing an article on a marginally notable figure, Aciman--who willfully holds himself out to the public in numerous books, articles, essays, etc--isn't remotely a close call.  (And if we accede here, what do we do when Thomas Pynchon or JD Salinger demand deletion for privacy concerns?) Vartanza (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Prominent gay writer.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. major author from major publisher. 9000 google hits for his IMAGE. (i dont like to use google hits as a gauge, but for an author and academic thats significant). Whoever is privy to subjects request for article deletion can hopefully coordinate with him on removing any controversial material thats not properly sourced. And a reminder, we are not voting, but presenting material for a decision to be made. there is some argument that sources are not neutral. lets get real: there are no truly neutral sources anywhere, for anything other than fully established math, physics, chemistry, astronomy (and even there, instititional bias towards established science...). the new york times reports on what it wants to print, with some subtle bias. book reviewers want to sell copies of their publication containing the reviews. interviewers have feelings about their subjects, and often choose people they want to interview, who they like (and sometimes hate). we are striving for relative neutrality, and trying to find the most neutral sources, or balance different pov's. i had a friend who invented an engine using shape memory alloy. to get a particular grant, it needed to be reviewed and evaluated by experts. ALL the experts in the field were his competitors, so he had great difficulty getting a neutral evaluation.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that no source is truly neutral in that sense. But I would like to see independent sources as per wp:independent sources.  And I agree with you that a neutral article comes from balancing different pov's.  My point is that without independent sources, it is not possible to accomplish this.  The problem here is that there we have only the pov of Aciman and his employer, so how is it possible to balance different pov's?  I should perhaps clarify that (in my view) the interview fails the independence criterion, not because the interviewer is biased, but because the source of the facts presented in the interview is, of course, Aciman himself--obviously not an independent source. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:GNG. Notable people have articles; if problems arise with them, you fix the article, rather than deleting it. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You may want to fill in the blanks: "Passes wp:gng because _____."  "Fix the article by doing the following things: A.____, B.____, and C._____." Just a suggestion.  160.39.213.97 (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And you may stop badgering those who disagree with you. Also just a suggestion. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Folks, this line debate is superfluous. It's clear that he passes on WP:PROF #5 alone because of his "Distinguished Professor" title at CUNY. Continue debating if you like, but the closing admin will give a "keep" verdict on this one. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2009 (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.