Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John R. Talbott


 * 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 Unsourced material has been removed in line with OTRS ticket #2009051110022742. Unsourced material should not be added to this article. Sedd&sigma;n talk 00:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

John R. Talbott

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I am nominating this article (version as of nomination) for deletion at the request of the subject, per OTRS #2009051110022742. The article lacks sufficient sourcing, the subject is not a public person, the "references" listed are articles written by the subject rather than about him, and given these factors and the subjects' request, I believe the article should be deleted. Daniel (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see how he can claim not to be a public person. The article can be cleaned up but there doesn't seem to be anything libelous or even negative in there. He meets the criteria for notability in WP:CREATIVE as his works are held in major libraries without even looking at other factors such as sources, for instance, the public library system in New York City has over 70 copies of his book Obamanomics alone.  Primary sources can be used in articles, just not to establish notability. If I'm missing something here, I'll be glad to reconsider my opinion. Drawn Some (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment You're not missing anything.  The subject of the article requested that we evaluate it for deletion, so here we are.   Keegan talk 04:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Looking at the contributions of the creator, Na.ls.0731 and the relation to the same publisher that put outs the subjects books, I think that there would be a more than slight COI in its creation, and consider it in that context promotional.  There are few enough edits to the original article to merit speedy deletion if Na.ls.0731 were to request it...just a thought.   Keegan talk 04:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, author of several successful books seems notable enough for me. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As author of the page, I request its deletion (Na.ls.0731)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Na.ls.0731 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete under G7, author-requested deletion. But if it is deleted, any recreation from keep !voters should be protected from being deleted under G4. Nosleep  break my slumber 16:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * G7 reads "Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author". The edit history shows a number of editors who have added content, and it's about the author, not the subject.  Cazort (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At the time of my !vote, the article was 4,846 bytes, of which 4,503 were written by the original author. Four other users had edited the page - one was to remove a stale inuse, one to add a category, two edits marked minor summarized as "formatting," and only one edit was content-related. The original author had provided the overwhelming majority of the content (really, all of it), and there had only been five other edits. And I think you probably could have figured this out given that my !vote came on May 13 at 16:06, a day and a half ago. But in the end, I really don't care that much. Nosleep  break my slumber 03:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It needs sourcing, but if this person has written half the books listed he is definitely notable. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  18:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable author. 5 major books, each in several hundred libraries. Obanomics translated into  Chinese & Japanese & Korean. Publiishers include Wiley, FinancialTimes, McGraw-Hill. Google News Archive  shows reviews in LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Bloomberg, NY Times, CNN, Globe & Mail, SF Chronicle, CBS, Hindu Business Line, WSJ, and in  Finnish and Russian as well. This is notability at a major international scale: 9 countries.    An author of popular  commercial publications under public affairs  is not a private person with respect to his writings. I would gladly accede to any request to suppress material not related to his notability, but his writings and their reviews make him notable. The article gives nothing person besides his degrees. An author might well complain that an article showed him in a negative light. This article is neutral. Sometimes an earlier version of an article shows major problems that would reasonably bother a  subject, but have since been removed; sometimes there are unfortunate remarks on the talk page -- but neither are present here. There is no possible basis for removal of this highly important author; what the author needs is expansion. I am surprised the nom. even considered it. A7 is no longer applicable, as people have spoken here for keep, and  the reviews have been added  I am surprised also the author asked for it. I wonder if there is some hidden story here, because this just not make sense.  DGG (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentThe subject of the article (John R. Talbott) and the presumptive representative of his publisher (Na.ls.0731) do need to understand that if it is deleted it will be re-created so nothing will be accomplished unless the objective is to erase the history of the article. Drawn Some (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment (agree with Drawn Some): If the article is deleted, there are sufficient sources to meet the relevant guidelines (including, , , ), so a new article about the subject would probably be created; because of this I don't think deletion would achieve anything useful. — Snigbrook 00:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I am confused -- what is wrong with the article? Mr. Talbott is clearly notable and very successful, and the article doesn't appear to malign his work or integrity. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. As I see it, there are several issues here:
 * WP:Biographies of living persons/Help says: 'If the community agrees you are in fact very minimally "notable", or of transitory (brief, non-lasting) notability, you may be able to request your article's deletion.' So the question here isn't, "Is he notable?" but, "Is he more than minimally notable?"
 * There are two ways that writers generally qualify as notable: WP:CREATIVE (usually for writers of fiction) and WP:ACADEMIC (usually for writers of non-fiction).
 * WP:CREATIVE: He's borderline here (as are most non-fiction writers).
 * There's no guideline as to what number is needed to qualify as having "works in many significant libraries."
 * As for "has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"—well, that one's a maybe. But are those articles about Talbott, or about his books? If the latter, maybe the books themselves should have articles instead of the author?
 * WP:ACADEMIC is another maybe:
 * Has he "made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"? Looking at Google Scholar and Google Books, I was surprised to see that he's not cited that much.
 * I don't see that his "academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education," as I was only able to find one college course using any of his books as a textbook.
 * I have a completely unscientific criteria for determining how notable an author is. In this case, I compare Talbott's WorldCat page to the WorldCat page of another author who is (imo) definitely not sufficiently notable. Result: Talbott has fewer works, is in fewer publications is in fewer languages, and is in fewer libraries. Result: borderline notability, and therefore, his wishes take precedence.
 * I don't see anything offensive in the current article either, but that is not the question at hand. My 2¢... Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about deleting pages of marginal notability when the subject requests deletion. But there are too many factors here...he is the author of a number of books, many of which are best-sellers and have attracted detailed reviews in major newspapers, discussion on talk shows, etc.  I simply can't see your point about this being a marginal case.  Cazort (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comparing the productivity and holdings of authors across such very widely varying subjects as financial economics and java programming is not a realistic way to judge. All academics are not lumped into one pot, nor all authors. The expected distribution of material is different; to take extremes, what is notable in say, theology, is not going to count for much in popular fiction. DGG (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Following discussions with Keegan as to the best way to proceed, and after correspondence between Mike Godwin and the subject, I've decided — with Keegan's full consent — to undelete the article, reopen the AfD to let it run its natural course, and archive this section based on the developments in discussion between Mike and the subject. Regards, Daniel (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

...and with that, I propose the AfD continue as normal, below. Daniel (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The individual is widely-covered, his works are available nationwide and the article has ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The subject is beyond doubt a public figure – not only an author but an analyst with appearances in the mass madia – and notable, and the article is well sourced and overall neutral in tone. (If anythting, it's a tiny bit on the laudatory side.) There is absolutely no justification for this to be deleted, and for it to be considered for deletion is, on the available evidence, inexplicable. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The people recommending to delete are not really addressing the question of notability, in my opinion. I tend to be swayed to be more likely to want to delete a page if the subject requests deletion--but this case falls too overwhelmingly on the side of notability.  I did a very brief search and found a large amount of coverage and attention for his books, articles of his that are often cited, etc.  And the current page, while it certainly needs improvement, doesn't seem to have any problems that justify deletion of the material (and erasing the edit history).  Cazort (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep--I don't see how deletion here can be justified, given the obvious notability and neutral tone of the article. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The sources found by DGG and the Newsweek and Bloomberg pieces alone are very substantial. It not have had comprehensive footnoting when the article was nominated, but that's a reason for improvement, not deletion.  --Oakshade (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Authors of books on politics and financial affairs who appear in the media as commentators cannot credibly claim to be shrinking from the public eye. The subject would otherwise meet every notability test. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * keep Is a notable, willing public figure. Requests for deletion must therefore be given minimal weight. The individual also fall under any standard of marginal notability but is rather fully notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, I don't see how this person could argue with a straight face that they are not a public figure. Ample secondary coverage to meet notability guidelines, and no malicious, incorrect, or slanderous content in either the current version, or the past versions of the article.  I acknowledge that the subject does not wish to have an article, but in this case he's notable enough that I think we have to politely decline.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:44, 21 May 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.