Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neal Porter


 * 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   no consensus. I've tagged the article as sourcing and notability remain issues. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Neal Porter

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

Non-notable individual. Article states he has won awards. Although his publishing house has won awards, there is no indicated he has. See http://www.editors-sa.org.au/?q=keynotes. The awards listed all appear to be for the author not the editor. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability does not rub off and there doesn't seem to be significant, in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- kelapstick (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The fact that an editor has edited some books (some notable, and some by notable authors), or that the editor works for a (possibly) notable publisher, does not make the editor notable. The only reference is to the web page of an editor's society where the subject once gave a talk. Johnuniq (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article would indicate that having an imprint named after the editor is a significant achievement in the publishing world. In particular, this represents being "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" as per the first point of WP:CREATIVE.  Because such an imprint is essentially a one man show, the awards to the imprint reflect significantly on the editor.  Better sourcing is needed for the awards but this does establish that his imprint (and by implication him) is award-winning.  This does not fall into WP:INHERITED due to the nature of a named imprint as outlined above.  To be sure, reference improvements are needed, but that is an issue for editting. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Subject is a highly-respected children's book editor. Much like a combination film producer/director, the editor is the person most responsible for giving the "green light," selecting and guiding the talent | (see here), controlling the content, promoting the book, and developing the reputation of the publishing house. In this case, books originated and facilitated by Porter, under his own imprint, have won numerous awards of every kind, including the highest, and are routinely on every short list of notable books. Therefore, an award for the book is an award for the person most responsible for its existence, even with his "behind the scenes" role. The question should not be why Porter is a worthy Wikipedia candidate, but why other prominent publisher/editors are not.Nyguide (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment Whpq, Nyguide, you still need reliable sources that discuss all of this or it's just WP:OR. Besides, he didn't win those awards, the books and their authors did. There are some lines of work where the things and people you work with are notable but the people in that line of work just aren't.  I could give some examples that would make this clear but they would be insulting to Mr. Porter. Drawn Some (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - I realize that the sourcing for this article is poor and even stated so in my keep opinion. However, the article is very new, and tagging it for additional references would make sense since there is evidence that he fulfills one of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE.  If later, there is no improvement, the article can still be deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. If the editor is truly notable we need reliable third party documentation to suggest that.  I'm not seeing it right now.  JBsupreme (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - He's an editor, not an author. -- Whpq (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Multiple mentions in NYT, and his departure from Grolier was in an article as well. Quoted about book market, etc.  If he is notable enough for the NYT, he is notable enough for WP.  Multiple mentions at Publishers Weekly.   And we should not dismiss mere editors and publishers of books -- IIRC producers of movies have less to do with the movies than an editor has to do with a book -- yet we manage to list them for sure. Collect (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment multiple trivial mentions, even thousands of them, in even the finest publications wouldn't make him notable. If the NYT or even inferior sources had in-depth coverage, he would be notable.  Drawn Some (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Non-trivial "You may well sell 40,000 copies of the book within the first year, as a direct result of winning each award, and they continue to sell year in, year out, said Neal Porter, director of library services for Charles Scribner's Sons and Atheneum. This year Scribner's won the Caldecott and Atheneum won the Newbery."  The extended article about Grolier and Porter leaving.   Keynote speaker for Society of Editors in South Australia.  Currently would meet notablilty as a publisher.   And the books with awards meet notability as well, on their own. Collect (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I just checked the above two references. The first quotes Porter saying that if a book wins a certain award, more copies will be sold. The award is for a book, not Porter. The second reference simply notes that Porter was a keynote speaker at a conference of editors held in Adelaide, Australia. The text states that Porter has been associated with book publishing for 30 years, and has edited books that have "won numerous citations". There would be hundreds of editors who have edited good books, and who have spoken at a conference of editors. The fact that neither reference said any more about Porter indicates that he is not notable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete INsufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Editors in book publishing are the people individually responsible at the highest level for the acquisition and development of a book--about the opposite of what the word means in a Wikipedia context. Major editors are notable, and being responsible for this many books receiving the highest awards in their fields is evidence of being a leader in the profession. DGG (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment In that case, there should be a secondary source saying this editor is notable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If this fails to be deleted I will surely be re-nominating this within a reasonable time.  There is absolutely NOTHING in the way of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications.  WP:BLP pretty much demands this in order to sustain an article on Wikipedia.  JBsupreme (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree wtih JB. There is no hint of any substantial coverage. Asserting that editors are notable is all well and good, but the article contents need to be cited to reliable sources. And it's impossible to do so without any coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge - The keynote speech source seems ok, but is not sufficient on its own. The quote above would be my definition of trivial - he's quoted in an article with a whole host of other editors talking about the subject of book prizes, not the subject of Neal Porter. If there was another major mention or a stronger link could be found between him and the prizes his books received, I could reconsider. He can/should be merged into the/an (not sure it exists) article about the publishers. Bigger digger (talk) 23:18, 25 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.