Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sid Kirchheimer


 * 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. ✗ plicit  23:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Sid Kirchheimer

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR -- if they are important, widely cited, etc. the article creator should show this. Right now I see pretty light coverage, most of which is two mentions from the same columnist published about a dozen days apart in 2006. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

(NOT AUTHOR ) feedback: NYTimes' Claudia H. Deutsch is cited in 59 other places on Wikipedia. Kirchheimer's book came out in 2006. One Deutsch item tells of "and his sister grew up in Philadelphia, the children of Holocaust survivors. His father, ..." whereas nothing about these personal details are in the other, which talks of how identity thieves can use one's info to get a driver's license in the victim's name, but with the thief's photo. The articles are not housing "mentions" of the subject: He's front, center, and the heavyweight. Nuts240 (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * keep - in addition to the NYT I have found articles which significantly feature him in the Washington Post, NBC, etc where he is named as an anti-scam expert. Pretty clear notability as per WP:BASIC in my view. JMWt (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete AARP articles out the wazoo, one piece in the Washington Post, but he's basically an expert on whatever he's writing about. Nothing about him as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * That's a different person altogether, I don't see how that helps us here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"re different person altogether"?? Saturday Evening Post, not the old weekly but a resurrection by other people, is published six times per year, so actually, since the topic fits, it can be added to the article, although I agree with Oaktree re his "don't see how that helps us here" sentiment Nuts240 (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

(NOT AUTHOR ) feedback2: The above NYTimes not only has "and his sister grew up in Philadelphia, the children of Holocaust survivors. His father, ..." (Early life section) and "married a local school teacher; together they have three children" but mentions his internet company going under, which is how his friend's advice led him to AARP. Personal! Nuts240 (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete regardless of the rather borderline notability . We are not a place for authors to advertise their books. The subjects of our articles should not be engaged in determining their own notability. Personally  I regard it as a clear G11, a blatant violation of NOT.``  DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Important CLARIFICATION My use of the word AUTHOR is not meant to say I'm this guy SID, but rather the "author" (or should I simply say initial article/stub editor). DGG: If you still think DELETE, then at least it should be for a better reason than thinking that Kirchherimer is writing on Wiki. I doubt he'd have the range of interest to contribute about Citbank,Orthodox Judaism,Computer-related matters (see today's contribution re COGNOS). I'm removing strikingOut AUTHOR to make it a bit more clear that it's not G11, and, for that matter, I'm NOT "NOT". I have a computer background, I'm Orthodox, and certainly not the only contributor/editor with that combo. Nuts240 (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody has, and I think nobody every will, be quaified to write an objective encyclopedia article about themselves or their organization--st least if its more than a directory entry. . But it can be quite difficult to tell the difference between coi and enthusiasm--I;ve worked on these problems here for 16 years, and I do not always get it right. (I suspect we miss a great many more than we incorrectly think coi, but that dooesn't help decide for any one particular article.) For 6 years if being checkuser and 5 an arb, I have learned thar except in rare cases, evidence from checkuser tends to be ambiguous, and  secondary evidence tends to be unhelpful . Nor is it possible to judge the sincerity of words writen by an anonymous or semi-autonomous figure of wikipedia or any other part of the internet.
 * The (partial) solution) I;ve found is to analyze the actual text and references presented: experience with hundreds of thousands of coi articles lets humans at least determine patterns. (I know of no automated method capabel of detecting more than the utterly obvious). Computers can detect verbal patterns; they cannot detect tone, because tone implies a responsiveness from the human reader.
 * Lets look at this one:
 * The beiography contains no details, in particular about his college career. It instead contains a statement of his faimilies hard work ethics, which is unproven and unprovable -- and irrelevant/
 * It omits a sequential description of his professional positions, which is basic information to an objective biology. .   It is of course normal for journalists to have irregular work histories, which is all teh more reason for specifying them,


 * to be continued tomorrow--please wait beofre closing — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 07:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

once again: I'm not Sid Kirchheimer. My mistaken use of the word AUTHOR is my mistake, and my real violation is WP:OWN, treating this article the wrong way - being perhaps overly protective. Nuts240 (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: I don't like relisting a third time, but am doings so because DGG requested more time, and while there is not clear consensus I believe such consensus can still be achieved. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 03:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * found term "creator" - is this what I should have used? Nuts240 (talk) 06:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Promotional article, lacks in-depth coverage to meet notability thresholds. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very little applied to the page which directly details the subject. I'm clear the page creator says they are not the subject, and I accept that assertion in good faith. That said, the sources I'm seeing seem to detail the single book, and not the author. Not enough material upon which to base a biography of a living person. BusterD (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2022 (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.