Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Popik


 * 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. There are reliable sources for this person. He had had media features on him, and is named in various books. The reason why people are having difficulty with the article is that it is a poorly sourced (and pooorly written) BLP. While the man is notable enough to have an article written on him, people have not yet written one up to appropriate standards. This is a no consensus close as the arguments on both sides are fairly equal. The article should be cleaned up and appropriately sourced or it is likely to be brought to AfD again.  SilkTork  *YES! 01:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Barry Popik
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability was challenged about a month ago, there have been no rebuttals and the biography does not appear to be notable enough to stand on its own Scoundr3l (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Popik is considered a leading researcher into word and phrase etymologies, notable in part because he is an amateur but his work ranks with that of top professionals.  He has been profiled in the Wall Street Journal (which, as noted in the article, called him "the restless genius of American etymology"), has been honored by the City of New York, and was the Republican candidate for Manhattan Borough President.  These facts seem pretty consistent with notability to me.  I think it's also significant that there are a number of pages that link to this one.  John M Baker (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: In fact, being a failed candidate for municipal office is explicitly not presumptively notable, nor is a vague honor by a city, however large. Was Popik the subject of that WSJ article, as opposed to him having been quoted in it?  That being said, while I couldn't find anything in Google News with him as the subject, he's quoted in many articles, and there doesn't seem to be much dispute that he's a recognized etymological authority.   Ravenswing  15:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Wall Street Journal article was a profile. John M Baker (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He does appear to be an authority on etymology, there's no question about that. However, some articles seem to quote him arbitrarily or unnecessarily. For example, on the Hot Dog article:
 * "The earliest usage of hot dog in clear reference to sausage found by Barry Popik appeared in..."
 * I'm of the opinion that his name is being cited in order to justify his article, rather than the article being made to satisfy the need to cite him. Does that make sense?Warthomp (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is poorly written (or at least this passage in it is). Popik's role in researching the etymology of "hot dog" is a relevant part of the story of it coming to light.  For a better-written example, see the article on Big Apple, where Popik also played an important role.  (Popik probably should be mentioned in the Origin of the name "Windy City" article too.)  Of course, this line of argument shows only that Popik properly is listed in the hot dog and Big Apple articles, not that he's notable in his own right, but I think it's a factor that can be taken into account in deciding whether he's notable.  John M Baker (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In regards to the number of pages that link to Barry Popik, it should be noted that a large number of them (I stopped counting at 14) only link Popik as a reference. Not including lists and talk pages, I see 6 articles that use his name in the body text. In a few cases, the mention of Popik seems somewhat trivial (and even a little clumsy). I think Climate of Chicago does a great job of explaining the relevance of his mention, but in other cases it comes off as unusual. Take almost any other article with an etymology section, for example, and you don't usually find a mention of who discovered the term.Warthomp (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge: I think the majority of Popik's notability can be found on the pages relevant to his work. I would like to see that information improved, if possible (perhaps with an anecdote about how Popik assisted, if note-worthy) but I feel the aren't enough third-party sources which use Popik as a subject to warrant a stand-alone article.Warthomp (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to Barry Popik and Weak keep. We've deleted articles of people more notable, we've kept articles of biographies less notable. (Cf. Beauty Turner.) I'd personally draw the notability line north of this guy, but there's much more here than for others we've deemed to meet WP:BIO, so I'm going to invoke WP:ILIKEIT. Arguably meets WP:SCHOLAR because of multiple citations.  He's basically the Snopes.com of etymology.  In addition to the WSJ article, there is, which gives him more coverage than many biographies we have here. THF (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete "He's at least as notable as [insert someone else with an article]" isn't a valid argument, nor is "...seems consistent with notability to me." Those supporing Keep need to reference a specific notability guideline and how Popik satisfies it.   EEng (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There exist two biographical articles about him as well as dozens of RS about his work, and he meets WP:SCHOLAR because of the wealth of citations to him. Hence my weak keep !vote. And, yes, the fact that AFD consistently refuses to delete the articles of people who don't have two biographical articles suggests that this one should be kept also per the general understanding of WP:BIO. THF (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what WP:Scholar is, it appears to be a search engine tool and not a criterion or policy. I'd just like to make sure we're not using invalid criteria, such as search engine results, in determining notability.Warthomp (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I would not say Mr Popik is notable as a chess player as his 2300 Elo rating is a bit short of the IM level where notability as a chess player is borderline. Chess does seem to be a notable enough aspect of Mr. Popik's life that it belongs in the bio however. The notability stems from his etymology research which has gathered some independent attention. In addition to the sources presented in the article, there was apparently an extensive article about him in the Dallas Morning News, here, which should provide some material to support the article. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. While Mr. Popik has more potential than others, a line must be drawn at what we consider (or should consider) notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Popik falls below that line. Thadeuss (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2010 (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.