Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph R. Stromberg


 * 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. Secret account 05:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Joseph R. Stromberg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This guy is just another in a long series of shout-y libertarian academic BLPs whose sources for notability lie in an incestuous web of fringe-y think-tanks, blogs etc. The "JoAnn Rothbard Chair" that he held doesn't seem to be a named chair in the sense intended per WP:PROF. Like most academics, he writes stuff and really that is about it: no big deal. Sitush (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete There aren't reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, and he doesn't meet WP:PROF: no claims of important contribution; lack of citations/reviews of his work; not held a named chair at a "major institution of higher education and research"; no other important positions, honors, fellowships held. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep – a couple of weeks ago the possibility of AfD was brought up on the talk page. I posted a notability template and suggested we wait a few weeks. In the last few days some work has been done to improve the article. Let's see what develops. The improvements are being made, I believe, to help expand the walled garden. – S. Rich (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A few more weeks, and then perhaps a few more? Maybe a few more after that? This is how articles that have been around since 2005 etc continue to exist despite not being related to notable subjects. You, Carolmooredc and others are contributing to WP more or less daily & thus the week or so that this AfD will run should suffice. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I said I'd support an AfD after a few weeks and I posted the template. (I certainly don't want this article to vegetate for 8 years.) Even with Carol's improvements (and mine), I doubt that notability will be satisfied. So I'm content to let this AfD run its course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srich32977 (talk • contribs)
 * It has already vegetated for eight years. That's long enough, template or no template. We've got to begin the process of getting a grip on these fluff pieces. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - The guy is an author, not a professor. "Independent scholar" is an article on Wikipedia, so independent scholars certainly should be allowed to have articles. Wikipedia is not censored and libertarianism is not hard science so alleged fringy-ness is irrelevant. (I mean there are self-described libertarians in the House and Senate, aren't there?) He's published widely and been mentioned or used as a reference in a number of works, though the latter can be hard to put into a ref. I have been working on the article so I don't see the need to hurry an AfD, but I just spent half an hour and added four refs. Scholar. google search shows 100 results, of which I'm sure 20 or 30 would be of a high enough quality for some use. The problem is not finding refs, but sorting through all the many returns to find the best ones from the greatest variety of high quality RS. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 15:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note, per AfD that says you can contact one or more Wikiprojects I put it at Wikiproject Libertarianism. Others can put on other relevant wikiprojects if they like. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 18:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, which bit of WP:AUTHOR does he satisfy? And which bit of WP:Notability (independent scholars)? Oops, we don't have that last one. We have categories for all sorts of things but the test here is notability. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:Author: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. His peers are a lot of tenured professors and/or experts in field of libertarianism. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think "peers" implies notable, respected people, not fellow fringe-travellers. Otherwise every man and his dog could be notable, given sufficient websites and use of AuthorHouse etc. Thankfully, we generally do not accept fancruft and its ilk. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:PROF applies to independent scholars: it covers those involved in "scholarly research or higher education" (my emphasis), and independent scholars would do the former. (And Wikipedia also has a page on mothers but that doesn't mean your mother is notable.) As I said above, there's no evidence of reviews of his work in mainstream/academic sources. Hence he doesn't meet WP:WRITER. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Stromberg is not an academic. He's a writer, but there's no secondary RS which indicates that his writings are noteworthy. @Srich, the goal is not to create larger walled gardens, it's to connect the garden to the real world when such connections exist.  We have found no such connection in this case.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources don't show notability outside of Misean circles, and not much notability within. Attempts to get the article past stub stage run into this lack of sources, resulting in a fluffy, unencyclopedic article. MilesMoney (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Colapeninsula. No significant coverage of the person so does not meet WP:GNG; nor held any important positions, had any significant impact in any scholarly discipline, or meets any of the other criterias for WP:PROF. Doesn't meet the criteria for WP:AUTH of being considered an "important figure"/"widely cited"/"originating a significant new concept" either. Mainly written for publications/netsites of lesser significance and has some citations, but doesn't seem to reach "widely cited". Iselilja (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. So far there isn't a single independent source in the article. Profiles from institutes he is associated with, or author blurbs in books that include one of his essays -- those are not independent and therefore contribute nothing toward showing notability. I looked at a number of possible sources from book and scholar searches, and do not share Carolmooredc's optimism that they will be useful. They appear to be passing source citations, not discussion of Stromberg or his work. --RL0919 (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Lacks ANY independent or mainstream source. Co-workers and colleagues from fringe, affiliated organizations don't cut it. Steeletrap (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete All citations are lists of his articles. Reads more like a CV than an article. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The link to GScholar posted by Carolmooredc speaks volumes: just a smattering of citations, 2 here, 3 there, etc. No indication at all that he even approaches any of the cirteria of WP:ACADEMIC. No indication either that WP:Author or WP:GNG are met. --Randykitty (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How big a smattering do you need? Just spent another 15 minutes researching and found whole article about him in a Kent State University academic publication and a mention in a book published by University of Chicago Press and two articles in a publication then run by Cato Institute. How many more like that do I need? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you can probably ignore the Cato Institute ones, for starters: incest, as usual. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Mentions" in articles or books are included in those "smatterings" that I was referring to. A whole article about him could be another matter. Could you please give us a link? --Randykitty (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Kent State's http://www.kentstateuniversitypress.com/journals/civil-war-history/ Journal of Civil War History] has a whole article called "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: Modern Libertarians Interpret the United States Civil War, 1960s-1990s", September 1, 2000 (via Highbeam). The whole longish article is all about Stromberg's and another libertarian's views, comparing and contrasting. Hopefully I'll find a few more like that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is definitely relevant. Unfortunately it is just one so far. (As an aside, the author of the linked piece, Thomas J. Pressly, may be more notable than Stromberg. And he's deceased, so no BLP issues. Just saying.) --RL0919 (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw the essay referred to in that KSU review & noticed that it didn't have many citations. There is a bit about it here[, from which I deduced a further issue, ie: those who have taken up his 1979 thesis are also oddballs who nestle closely to each other in the libertarian thinktanks etc, eg: Thomas DiLorenzo. It might be argued that the essay was a significant contribution to thought but if there are no others then the solution is to have an article about the essay, not the person. And whether or not it really was a significant contribution depends less on what his friends think and more on what historians generally think. For example, E. P. Thompson, who was a Marxist historian, was widely acclaimed for his The Making of the English Working Class & similar studies, not merely by fellow Marxists. Similarly, Hugh Trevor-Roper wrote widely and garnered significant attention from an equally wide group of people (both for and against him, in this instance). One notable essay that is accepted/discussed pretty much only by fellow-travellers does not really hit the mark. Is civil war history such a niche? It's 30 years since I studied it under Mark Kaplanoff at Cambridge but I can't recall any shortage of sources. What does the American Historical Review have to say about Stromberg's stuff? Does the review say much about Stromberg or just some stuff about the essay and its acceptance by a couple of his fellow-travellers? - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just searched The War for Southern Independence: A Radical Libertarian Perspective at JSTOR. Zero hits. I've also just noticed that Jeff Riggenbach, who wrote the book I linked above, is yet another in the magic circle. Isn't it odd that these people praise and cite each other and no-one else even thinks to give them a mention, not even bothering to criticise? - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of evidence of impact outside of his own narrow circle (per WP:PROF or WP:GNG). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2013 (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.