Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ove Michaelsen


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ove Michaelsen

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

Non-notable per WP:AUTHOR and WP:MUSICBIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. MuffledThud (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —MuffledThud (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence that his books are notable, nor has he toured or recorded music. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The search for sources should be under "O.V. Michaelsen," and the alternate (birth name), "Ove Ofteness."
 * The article has been retitled under the correct name.
 * Please note the references/footnotes on the page.
 * A life's work and documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucalegon (talk • contribs) 22:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)  — Ucalegon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Weak delete Few libraries have his books, 75 for all 3 books combined. but G News Archive shows they are occasionally quoted as a reference--getting much the same hits as those listed in the article. . As for the question of whether they are a standard reference, I see that there  are a number of considerably more widely held books on about the same subject.   ,    . I can;t judge the other aspects of notability.    DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete if he had written a notable book it would be a clear keep, but as it is we don't have any real evidence of notability. NBeale (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep His books are notable for their quality of content. He is very well known in a very specialized field of knowledge.  Given the narrow specialization of his works, it is notable that they are in 75 libraries.  His poetry is frequently published in the Berkeley Daily Planet.  He is a well known singer/songwriter in the S.F. Bay area. Has Recorded with Suzy and the Dinosaurs - John Cipollina, Spencer Dryden, Peter Albin.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre Abelarde (talk • contribs) 18:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)  — Pierre Abelarde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * There are no references in the article supporting any of these claims: can you provide some please? Also, who are Suzy and the Dinosaurs?  Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 14:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Without response by User:Pierre Abelarde, I cannot verify his claims, and accordingly there is no evidence of notability. A response from him/her with sources may change my !vote. --Shirik (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unnotable author that fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG, and without significant coverage in reliable sources there is no way to meet WP:BLP -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The references are easy to find.  Google search on Suzy and the Dinosaurs will give you this link at the top of the page.
 * http://www.isound.com/suzy_fischer_featuring_the_dinosaurs___john_c/


 * A search of the Berkeley Daily Planet for Ove Ofteness will give you 18 links. The four below are published poems. This is not a comprehensive list.


 * http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2009-01-08/article/31948?headline=Letters-to-the-Editor
 * http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2006-06-02/article/24311?headline=Letters-to-the-Editor
 * http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/pdfs/07-16-09.pdf
 * http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/pdfs/12-18-08.pdf


 * One would verify the quality of the O.V. Michaelsen's published works by reading them. Notability is not just measured by fame. The seriousness of the work is more consequential. An extreme example of this would be Newton's work on calculus. It was certainly notable even for the many years it wasn't published.


 * It would seem those proposing deletion are not familiar with the author's work and have made no serious effort to follow up on even the citations listed in the article. The criticism of O.V. Michaelsen's writings in this proposal seem to be frivolous and clearly uniformed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.98.95 (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)  — 67.169.98.95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment WP:Notability of an author on Wikipedia isn't established on the basis of a subjective assessment by its editors of the "quality" of their work. Were Newton alive today, years before any WP:Reliable sources in the worlds of mathematics and physics had given him the recognition he deserved, he would indeed be ignored by Wikipedia. In fact Wikipedia gets frequent submissions claiming Newton-like breakthroughs that have not yet been granted the recognition due, and insisting that they should be included anyway.  It's not the role of Wikipedia to identify high-quality but under-recognized works and declare them notable. It's an attempt to document subjects which are already established to be notable.
 * You're right to say that notability isn't synonymous with fame: if Michaelsen is notable in the specialized area of lexicology claimed, then please provide verifiable, reliable sources supporting his notability according to Wikipedia's criteria. If you think the criteria agreed in WP:AUTHOR and WP:MUSICBIO are wrong, then the place to argue your case for changing them is at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment There is no argument with the Wikipedia standard of notability. That basically is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." As the citations meeting that standard are in the article, clearly the proposal to delete is from another perspective. So comments from other perspectives are valid in the context of this discussion.


 * It should be noted that the author had works published subsequent to his first book, "Words at Play". This is de facto indication that his work is successful in the market place.  That is an objective measure of notability.


 * It is telling that the impetus for requesting deletion centers around whether the author is "notable in the specialized area of lexicology as claimed" and if his work is a "standard reference". There is no such claim made. It is explicit that the author has many publications in the area of recreational linguistics.  His works are primarily entertaining.  Due to the extensive supporting notes in the books, they also happen serve a didactic purpose as well.  His books and articles are certainly not ponderous, encyclopedic works of linguistic scholarship.


 * So, the author is being held to an irrelevant standard. The criticism is akin to claiming a family car is a poor vehicle because it doesn't have the passenger capacity of a Greyhound bus. The critiques here are fundamentally straw man arguments.


 * Finally, the idea that inclusion in Wikipedia is not a subjective assessment by the editors is illusory. These sorts of decisions are fundamentally subjective.  That is not a criticism of the process.  It is a recognition of the reality of the nature of the decision making process.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.98.95 (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)  — 67.169.98.95 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Decisions on inclusion in Wikipedia are made on the basis of an assessment of a subject's notability according to previously-agreed criteria, and not on an assessment of the quality of their work. You wrote:
 * "One would verify the quality of the O.V. Michaelsen's published works by reading them. Notability is not just measured by fame."
 * ...and I answered,
 * "WP:Notability of an author on Wikipedia isn't established on the basis of a subjective assessment by its editors of the 'quality' of their work.".
 * You also wrote:
 * "The seriousness of the work is more consequential. An extreme example of this would be Newton's work on calculus. It was certainly notable even for the many years it wasn't published."
 * ...but are now arguing that the author's works are primarily entertaining. That's fine: we'll stick to WP:AUTHOR and WP:MUSICBIO for notability rather than WP:ACADEMIC.  How does the author meet the notability criteria in WP:AUTHOR and WP:MUSICBIO?  MuffledThud (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:AUTHOR


 * 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.


 * Please see citations listed in the article.


 * 4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries


 * There is no more significant critical attention than market success. Also see documentation of libraries already listed above.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.98.95 (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. He is cited in 3 other books on the subject: in my opinion this does not meet the guideline of "widely cited by their peers": could other editors please comment?
 * 4. We should assume from the context that "significant critical attention" in WP:AUTHOR means just that: attention from critics. I can't find a single critical review of any of his works online . WP:AUTHOR is necessarily imprecise on the definition of "many significant libraries": again, for me 75 libraries worldwide for all 3 works does not meet this guideline, but I'll leave it to consensus from other editors.  MuffledThud (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * User:71.142.81.11 has just pointed out on my talk page that Amazon.com's customer review for Words at Play: Quips, Quirks & Oddities contains a quoted critical review from the Aug. 1998 issue of Word Ways: the Journal of Recreational Linguistics by its then editor, as well as praise from some other, unverifiable sources. The quoted review is from an anonymous customer of Amazon, so verification of the review would be useful: they don't maintain an online archive. This still isn't "significant critical attention", but it's a start. MuffledThud (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The assertion that "significant critical attention" should be assumed to mean views of formal critics is unsupportable. Professional critics are notoriusly venal, capricious, and shape their views to meet the demands of their market.  The market place at large represents a critical consensus.


 * A professional critic could easily contend that Michael Jackson's works are musically trite and stultifyingly boring. The critic could even bring musicalogical theory and history to the argument to “objectively” support that claim.  Michael Jackson would still be notable.


 * The comment made regarding "many significant libraries" is admittedly subjective.   This is a contradiction to prior assertions to the effect that subjective positions are not valid in this context.


 * The statement that a critical review in Word Ways: the Journal of Recreational Linguistics isn't "significant critical attention” is also an unsupported subjective judgement.


 * Since the work is in the genre of recreational linguistics, a postive review in journal that covers this arcane field would seem to be a very significant statement if one is judging by the criteria of professional criticism.


 * comment added by Pierre Abelarde —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Again, if you think the criteria agreed in WP:AUTHOR and WP:MUSICBIO are wrong, then the place to argue your case for changing them is at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please read the comments more carefully. There is no dispute with Wikipedia's criteria. The dispute is with your personal interpretation of those standards. However, that is of no consequence since the article clearly meets your criteria as well as the broader and more substantive understanding of "critic". comment added by Pierre Abelarde  —Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC).

Comment: When information from user 71.142.81.11 were quoted above, significant details were omitted. Below are the complete comments by that user:

“Critical reviews by wordsmiths author Dr. Ross Eckler, magazine editor Ted Clarke, and members of the National Puzzlers' League:

http://www.amazon.com/Words-Play-Quips-Quirks-Oddities/product-reviews/0806997915

Also see Reference No. 1 of the Wikipedia article from The Palindromist magazine:

http://www.realchange.org/pal/authors.htm

71.142.81.11 (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks: that review quote from Word Ways looks good, so I'll post it to the AFD discussion, and let's see what the rest of the editors think. MuffledThud (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That former editor of Word Ways was Ross Eckler, author of Making the Alphabet Dance. Michaelsen contributed to that major book, and to the book The National Puzzlers' League: The First 115 Years. Another review on that Amazon.com site was by Ted Clarke, editor of Wordsworth magazine in England. For the sake of fairness, please mention the names of those reviewers. Why did you bring up the comments by an anonymous reviewer? You are not giving this a fair shake.

71.142.81.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC). The quoted reviews were posted to the Amazon customer review page by an anonymous customer: "A Customer". Please go ahead and add more detail about the other reviewers at the AFD discussion, if you think they're significant. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC) “

comment added by Pierre Abelarde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.98.95 (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please have a read of Sock puppetry:
 * ''"Editors must not use alternate accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus. This includes, but is not limited to:
 * * Creating an illusion of support: Alternate accounts must not be used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists.
 * * Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections."
 * Posting under two IDs in a deletion discussion is not the best way to win support for your argument.
 * Would admins reviewing this deletion discussion please note investigation at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/67.169.98.95. - MuffledThud (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Pierre Abelarde has been blocked 2 days for sock puppetry via vote-stacking with the IP in the above deletion discussion. MuZemike 21:02, 19 December 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.