Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lorenzen


 * 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 of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael Lorenzen
non-notable Rlitwin 04:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A prior version of this article went through the deletion process and the result was delete. The reason was non-notability. The new article may have some new content but the person in question hasn't grown greatly in notability since then. See Articles for deletion/Michael Lorenzen (prior deletion). Rlitwin 04:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Considering the subject as an academic, he does not appear to be more notable than the average professor. See WP:PROFTEST. --Metropolitan90 07:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Metropolitan90. Dionyseus 09:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This person is well know in the library instruction field and meets the criteria for a noted professor or academic.  He has 64 citations at Google Scholar on the search (lorenzen "library instruction").  I think that is notable. LarryQ 04:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this article similar to Jessamyn West which survived a vote for delation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessamyn West? Most Wikipedia users have no clue who is important in the library world but a Google search quickly shows notability. LarryQ 05:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Jessamyn is noted in the library world primarily as a blogger, and also as an ALA Councilor (she just finished her three year term). I am in the library world, and I have never heard of Michael Lorenzen.  If you want to use a Google test, I think you will find there is no comparison between Jessamyn West and Michael Lorenzen on that basis.  (You might check my results as well - "rory litwin" - and you will see the kind of results a non-notable can get in the library world.)  Michael Lorenzen is one of thousands in the library world in terms of notability.  Lots of people write articles.  If you look at Jessamyn's articles for deletion discussion, you'll see that it was close, and a deciding fact seems to have been that she was selected as one of a dozen or so bloggers invited to attend the 2004 Democratic National Convention as bloggers in the press corps.  So, it seems to me that Jessamyn survived the articles for deletion vote mainly because of her notability as a blogger.  She was one of the earliest bloggeres and is very well known in the profession for that.  There aren't any other Wikipedia articles on contemporary librarians who are as non-notable as Lorenzen; his article is really an exception, in my opinion. The others are either actual professors, ALA past-presidents, historical figures, etc. Rlitwin 13:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I don't think 64 hits in Google Scholar meets the professor test. Compare professor Kathleen McCook, who I think is notable in the library world. (kathleen mccook library gets 292 hits in google scholar.)  Rlitwin 13:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, most of Lorenzen's articles were published in state and local publications, not national publications. He is probably very well known locally and somewhat known nationally, but notability requires a little more in an encyclopedia, IMO. Rlitwin 14:06, 15 July 2006 (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.