Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerome Arkenberg


 * 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Jerome Arkenberg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability claim appears to be "being the contributing editor for Internet History Sourcebooks Project." No third party depth-of-coverage reliable sources, no evidence that subject meets any of the WP:PROF notability criteria. Prod tag was disputed by subject. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Internet History Sourcebooks Project. This appears to be within the scope of WP:ONEVENT It's the Project that is arguably notable, not its contributing editor Arkenberg.
 * I could be argued into a "keep" by a persuasive argument that any of the awards listed in the last paragraph of the "Career" section confer notability; but they do not seem to. TJRC (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: the apparent subject's own argument to keep the article can be found on the article's talk page, Talk:Jerome Arkenberg. TJRC (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect as per TJRC. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete although redirects are WP:CHEAP, it is not clear to me that this subject is notable enough to warrant such a redirect. The scant article does not have the type of content that I think warrants such a redirect. The article should mention a contribution that is of permenant relevance to the article for such a redirect. Every reputable website has an editor and other lesser editors. These titles are fleeting. In the future there will be different editors if this website has lasting importance. Unless the article has content about his founding of the website, we should not point readers there via a redirect.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see your point; but the only reason I prefer "Redirect" to "Delete" is that the article has been around for more than twelve years. There may be sites outside Wikipedia that link to it. Wikipedia is better served by redirecting them to the related article than by sending them to a blank page with, among other things, an invitation to create the article; WP:EXTERNALROT. 21:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Article longevity is not a source of notability. Especially since prior to 2010 or maybe even a bit later we lacked many of the policies that make article creation a little harder now. We did not have the procedural deleation for unreferenced biography of living person articles, we did not have the still not comprehensvie enough article creation process, if you go back far enough we did not limit article creation to autoconfirmed users (we started that because of someone creating an attack article), we have much looser and almost non-existent inclusion criteria. Having existed longer in Wikipedia means the article was created at a time when our creation and inclusion policies allowed things that are less likely to pass today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, you misunderstand me. I am not claiming notability based on longevity. I am not claiming notability at all. I say quite clearly above that the subject is non-notable. The basis for maintaining a redirect is so that external sites that may already link to his deleted article will be sent to the article that deals with him, rather than to an empty page that invites them to create the deleted article. See WP:EXTERNALROT and (the same argument in a different context) WP:RFD no. 4. TJRC (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete being prolific and being notable are not the same thing. Says the guy with over 354,000 Wikipedia edits.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per from a guy with only 70,000 edits. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment -- This probably stands or falls according to the significance of Internet History Sourcebooks Project. If this is as widely used in schools as it claims, the guy is probably notable.  However the place I would expect to find a profile of the editors is somewhere on the Project's own website, not necessarily in WP.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment (1) Subject is contributing editor, not the creator. (2) Project in question seems to be linked to frequently, but then again I would expect that any free resource would be used frequently. The project's notability beyond the frequent inbound links is tenuous; I couldn't find any non-trivial 3rd party source coverage of it. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I also disagree that notability is somehow contagious, and that an otherwise-unnotable editor can contract it by being an editor on a purportedly notable project. See WP:NOTINHERITED.  TJRC (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete on account of subject failing WP:NACADEMIC. A cursory examination of the contested article's sourcing makes the point evident. -The Gnome (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Being a "contributing editor" or editing other people's work doesn't show notability. Don't see that he meets WP:NPROF or the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2019 (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.