Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lou Schuler


 * 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.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lou Schuler

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable per WP:NOTE and WP:BIO, the little notability asserted comes from sources that are non-reliable per WP:RS and WP:SPS. Aditya Kabir 10:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. WP:NOTE states that "A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic". Here, significant means that "the source speaks on the subject in detail, rather than a mention in passing or name drop". Significant means more than trivial but less than important. Reliable means " credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (as per WP:RS). Independent excludes "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs" (as per WP:SPS).

And, these guidelines stand directly against using the subject's personal advertising blog, passing mention in a a few websites, a couple of interviews repeated across a number of promotional sites or amazon.com reviews that aim mostly at making a sell to establish notability.

WP:BIO states that a creative professional (including authors, editors, journalists and others) is notable if the person:
 * is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
 * is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, which has been the subject of an independent book , or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (Underlines added by me)

Or, the person is notable if the person's work:
 * (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument
 * (b) has won significant critical attention
 * (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance.

I have searched long and hard to get the subject/article meet those criterion, and failed. Part of a 21,000 strong professional community, shared winner of a small time award in a tinsy-winsy category, writer of a few hardly-notable books, and a speaker among hundreds in a couple of large conventions - that's all that could be established about the subject. That too not very reliably. Reason enough to get me so convinced of the subject's non-notability and the sources non-reliability.

I also have tried tagging it for notability concerns and tried to draw expert attention to the article. Unfortunately, the only response I received was repeated removal of the tags. Here goes the links for the removals - the first removal, the second removal, the third removal, the fourth removal, and the fifth removal. Not even once an explanation was offered on the talk page, though I kept repeating the request for an explanation. I also posted to the talk page creator of the article who kept removing the tags without improving the article along the same line. But, that message was removed without any other response. Looks like WP:OWN at work. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 11:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete one actual award (more precisely, as one of the author of one of the articles justifying the award made to the magazine that published it) Everything else in in-house--an article in the magazine he edited is not an independent source. DGG 23:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I don't care if you keep my entry or delete it. I'm just a guy who writes workout books. I didn't even know I had a Wiki entry until a few months ago; I stumbled on it when I Googled myself. I went in and updated the information, which was several years out of date. The next time I saw the entry, it had silly details about me speaking at minor fitness conferences, which I probably don't even mention in my own bio at my website. And it said the entry is being considered for deletion.

Bottom line, I agree with whoever thinks I'm not important enough to have a Wiki page. Feel free to take it down. The only reason I edited the piece was to make the information accurate. I was surprised to find I had a Wikipedia page at all, and even more surprised to find this somewhat humiliating takedown of my career.

Side note: If someone out there thinks a National Magazine Award is "a small-time award in a tinsy-winsy category," all I can say is, you go out and win one, and then report back on how easy it was. First you have to get published in a magazine good enough to be considered for awards. Then you have to navigate the magazine's internal politics to get one of your stories submitted for an award. (If you think a magazine's best stories automatically get entered in contests, you've never worked at a magazine.) And then you're in competition with the nation's biggest magazines and some of the best working writers in the business. True, we weren't up against the New Yorker and Atlantic Monthly in the Personal Service category. But that still leaves almost every other magazine you see on newsstands. (I was up against the New Yorker for a different award, in 2003, but lost.)

So please take the entry down, with my blessing. It would be nice if you'd delete this discussion as well. I didn't ask for any of this.

Lou Schuler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lou Schuler (talk • contribs)
 * I am sorry that you feel humiliated. But, you work for magazines, and you know how these things work. And, that is probably one of the reasons why it's better not to do autobiographical articles in WP. I myself am convinced that you are a nice person, a good writer, a committed magazine-man, and have the potential to become a good Wikipedian, too (bodybuilding articles do need a contributor like you). But, notability is different issue altogether. Finally, I am sorry that I was harsh in my comments here. Just remember that I was the person who was trying diligently to improve the article on you, if that helps to make you feel better. Cheers, man, you still are good writer. Aditya Kabir 17:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom Harrison Talk 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The commentary on the guy's accomplishments probably comes off harsher than the nominator intends. I think these are enough to support a good short bio:
 * The St. Louis Post-Dispatch of December 28, 2005 has an article by Schuler;
 * The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette of March 19, 2007 says "Schuler is a frequent contributor to magazines such as Men's Health and is the co-author of four books including The New Rules of Lifting and The Men's Health Home Workout Bible. He will speak about "How to Write About Fitness and Get Published;"
 * The Star Tribune of November 30, 2004 and the The Montreal Gazette quote him about men and exercise;
 * The St. Louis Post-Dispatch of September 22, 2003 reviews one of his books;
 * The Atlanta Journal and Constitution of July 1, 1993 reviews Schuler's experience in a boxing class;
 * Publishers Weekly of October 21, 2002 has a brief review of another of his books.
 * Comment. Good argument, and very good research, too. I'm sorry if I sounded harsh. It may be a result of frustration with the owner of the article, who kept removing my pleas to the community to add some info that would more-or-less irrefutably establish notability. I see that lately User:Elephino-rob and you have done some research, and added to the article itself - an infobox that doesn't even have a birth date, and a list of his work, already stated in the article, a bit more fleshed out to include ISBN numbers and stuff - though those efforts hardly added to the notability-value of the subject. I really don't see how your findings here fulfills criterion like "widely cited by their peers" (3-4 quotes?), "significant new concept, theory or technique" or "significant or well-known work subject of multiple independent periodical articles" (two books quoted by one magazine each?). I know, there can also be an argument that there are bio articles on WP that feature even less notable people. But, that's exactly why we have the prod and AfD processes. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 16:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Wikipedia article on the National Magazine Award states the award is "roughly equivalent to the Pulitzer Prizes". WP:N states that a person is notable if "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors."  Based on the definition of WP:N, he qualifies for inclusion.  I'm not saying this is a high priority article, but Schuler is certainly notable based on the current guidelines of Wikipedia.  --Ataricodfish 19:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unfortunately the same artcile on National Magazine Award uses only the official web site of the Award. Using it to establish a statement will be very much against the policy of Reliability of Sources. There already is enough talk going around to prove that Wikipedia is unreliable as an encyclopedia. Building one premise on another which was flawed to begin with is only going to compound that unreliability factor. Aditya Kabir 13:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think nominating National Magazine Awards for deletion would be a mistake. Tom Harrison Talk 14:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post of May 6, 2004 says "Esquire, America's oldest men's magazine, was the big winner yesterday at the National Magazine Awards, picking up four of the prestigious annual prizes."
 * The New York Times of May 10, 2006 says "The magazine awards, the industry's most prestigious honor, are sponsored by the American Society of Magazine Editors in association with the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism."
 * The New York Post of March 15, 2007 says "Yesterday, the American Society of Magazine Editors announced the nominations for the prestigious awards, known as "Ellies" because the Albert Calder-designed trophies look like stylized elephants.
 * The Washington Post and the New York Times considered the awards important enough to report the winners under the headline "New York, National Geographic Win Magazine Awards" and "National Magazine Awards Smile on Some and Disappoint Frequent Winners" on May 2, 2007
 * Nomination withdrawn Yeah, right. I was wrong. And, I must say, the editors who came up with this wonderful blitz of good research were lazy. Please, do not just defend an article on the deletion discussion (people outside the Community don't read them). If you really care about the article, the subject and Wikipedia, please, add these wonderful evidence to the articles on Lou Schuler and National Magazine Awards. Make the articles more credible. I propose that we close this discussion (if only you people did this to the article when I kept tagging it for expert attention). Aditya Kabir 15:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Aditya Kabi, I appreciate your honesty and integrity. Best wishes, Tom Harrison Talk 15:33, 24 May 2007 (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.