Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraser P. Seitel


 * 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. After more than a month and two relistings, it doesn't look as though a consensus is emerging. No prejudice against renominating at any time. Deor (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Fraser P. Seitel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Out of the citations provided 1 is self-published, 2 is a brief mention, 3 is primary and 4 is gibberish. It is very rare for a PR executive to truly be notable enough for a page, save for people like Scott Cutlip, Ivy Lee, Edward Bernays, and the CEOs at the top 10 or so PR firms. CorporateM (Talk) 14:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I was contemplating nominating this for deletion myself, but CorporateM (who by the way is a subject-matter expert) got there before me. I originally became aware of this article when I combed out a strange bit of promotion from David Rockefeller, which indicated that either the article subject or someone closely associated was spamming the project. Article history indicates that it has been beset by puffery and COI editing for years, and I'm surprised it has lasted this long. Fails WP:BIO, as media appearances and textbook authorship do not rise to the level of notability. He is in the media representing this guy or that, but so do thousands of other PR people. Coretheapple (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm here by way of Deletion sorting/Academics and educators but I think for his level of engagement with academia (adjunct who mostly does other stuff) WP:GNG is more relevant than WP:PROF. But there are no in-depth reliable sources independent of the subject that would make a case for GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. He does have a highly cited book. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC).
 * But despite six years of trying, beginning with the SPA that created this article and right up through the present with a three-year-old account that calls him "Mr.," it still doesn't satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Coretheapple (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Book is "widely cited by peers" per AUTHOR #1. According to this New York Times article "Fraser Seitel, author of the largest-selling college textbook on public relations". According to Seitel's own information: "Two hundred colleges and universities have selected his outstanding text" [for use in classroom] and while there is no exact list of 200, Google shows a lot: . Also, PRWeek magazine once said: "..instructors include Fraser Seitel and Helio Fred Garcia, both authors of widely used PR textbooks." He also served as a "family spokesman" (PR agent) for the Rockefeller and Astor families, which is not inherently notable but a search of NY Times shows a ton of mentions. NOTINHERIT is an essay, sometimes people are notable for being in a position that garners them a lot of press exposure. All of these things I believe adds up to notability. --  Green  C  03:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The WorldCat holdings for his 3 books are 963, 431, 988, which is a statistical pass for PROF c1. The article may need work, but I think he passes. Agricola44 (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 21:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Being the spokesperson for a notable family does grant some press, however it boils down to Spokesperson Fraser P. Seitel said this... which is not significant coverage of Seitel, he is just the messenger. The discussion is leaning to a delete/no consensus, however given the COI issues, and the fact it is a BLP, I would consider a no consensus to default to delete in this case. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The New York Times says "Fraser Seitel, author of the largest-selling college textbook on public relations", he is cited as an expert by his peers based on that alone, plus he is regularly on Fox News channel as an expert in his field. A lot of colleges must use his book for it to be the largest selling textbook on public relations.   D r e a m Focus  09:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems to have significant coverage of notability as an academic Author. SPACKlick (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - the Times article is about Howard J. Rubenstein, and only gives a single passing mention, one clause of one sentence of an article. This is s textbook case of failing WP:42 if I ever saw one. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:42 is an essay that many of us find poorly represents consensus. For example 42 requires "no passing mentions", but the guideline WP:SIGCOV doesn't say "passing mentions" (a pejorative phrase). Significance can be a single sentence so long as it shows there is notability (eg. "author of the largest-selling college textbook on public relations"). It's what is being said not the number of words or focus of the source. -- Green  C  20:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see Don't_cite_WP42_at_AfD SPACKlick (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Not sure this meets the criteria outlined in WP:BIO, but it does have scant sources that makes one believe there might be some notability. i do agree with one of the above editors that simply being a mouthpiece for others does not make you a good subject for inclusion. So delete or keep I am not going to jump up and down about with this article.--Canyouhearmenow 20:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. - Astounding there has been this much discussion about the merits of the article, initiated from a prejudice that a Public Relations person is not likely to be notable.  PR people are good at getting names in the news, including their own names, that's their job function.  So you have to look around the edges and its not always easy.  But seriously this has been at AfD for a month and nobody took to google?  A page of complaining and adding "Delete" but nobody tried to add a source?  I added four new sources, showing this guy is a visible pundit, including Larry King during his appearance on CNN (OK, that was hard to find because they misspelled his name) and even Fox News (who I don't regard as reliable but in this case, he's writing for them, which establishes he is notable enough of a pundit for them to let him have editorial space).  Since he is a pundit, on TV, readers should be able to find the guy and find out who he is. Trackinfo (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. After considering debate, notability not attained. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Weak Delete, a lot has been made of his book supposedly being well respected enough to make Seitel notable, and while the mention in the NYT goes some way to confirming that, there doesn't seem to be the wide coverage of the book that I'd expect if it were actually a widely used text, just a bunch of PR fluff and promotional stuff. I'm not convinced at all, although he seems very good at self promotion, as you'd expect a PR expert to be.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:35, 26 July 2014 (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.