Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review

Jake Bernstein

Jake Bernstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable market trader and self publicist. Insufficient citations in WP:RS to satisfy notability. Prod removed without explanation by IP. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Weak keep by sheer volume of publication, I guess he is a keeper.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• a neighborly Response to TonyTheTiger

Whenever I guess, I often guess wrong, so I'd rather not mimic your guess he's a keeper this time.

The sheer volume of publication offers no supporting argument in favor of Wikipedia notability:

An argument popular at AfD proceedings is "She has X number of Y, which proves that she's notable" (or not).

We may establish notability not by the quantity of one's published work, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources. An article on a topic is more likely to pass the notability test with a single article in Encyclopedia Britannica than with 1 million views on YouTube.

For more information, please see I Like It! : Arbitrary Quantity.

I would encourage you to reverse your recommendation — if only to a Luke-Warm Delete — unless you can accomplish what not one of the rest of us has been able to do in two years of trying in good faith:

to demonstrate Notability by revealing to all of us reliable, independent, credible, established, mainstream news sources that have produced any substantial, comprehensive coverage of this subject.

— Wordsmith (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

____________________________________________

.

• Strong Keep I'm a student of Jake Bernstein, I made the original entry and have occassionally appended it. Jake's work is objective and helpful. The entry should remain, without bias, as a simple identification of a very prolific author who is also a helpful teacher. Biased content added by the misinformed who do not know Jake or his work first hand should be removed as well as references to slanderous competitors sites. The entry should remain as a simple identification and bibliography of a prolific author. --Thor1964 (T/Special:Contributions/Thor1964/User:Thor1964/WP:Santa Cruz, CA) 12:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• a congenial Response to Thor1964

As I've said before, my first obligation is to presume your good faith, and I hereby renew that presumption in your favor once more.

I understand and I respect your loyalty to your subject, Thor, and I urge you to amend — and defend — your case for a Jake Bernstein article, but only if you can ingenuously establish his notability from substantial, extant, reputable, mainstream, secondary coverage of him by sources that do not "know Jake or his work first hand," in accord with the Wikipedia policy on Notability and acceptable Sources, in advance of a reincarnation of your article.

.

I myself have not, cannot, and I've failed to find even one objective person who can.

Nonetheless, I remain receptive to anyone anywhere who can do the deed honestly.

You weaken your case (when none of us should have a "case" or any agenda at all)

if you choose to neglect the only important issue here (Notability), in favor of

such expressions of a personal point of view that our guidelines for this very discussion exclude:

"I'm a student of Jake Bernstein" + Jake's "a helpful teacher" = Wikipedia: I Like Him + Wikipedia:He's Helpful

.

Please let me encourage you to cite genuine evidence of Notability if you can — or perhaps, if you find yourself agreeing that no significant, substantial, independent, secondary, reputable coverage of Jake is out there anywhere, friend, to reverse your recommendation gently to a Regretful and Reluctant Delete — since your argument here, as it stands, may carry no weight in this nomination for deletion, in view of what we find in Notability is Not a Matter of Opinion. Your statement here

• is not supported by any policies, guidelines or precedents;
• does not represent a neutral point of view;
• and seems to suggest you've not had much luck finding any legitimate sources of independent coverage of Jake for your article, which is a clear sign that your charismatic teacher does not meet the notability criterion.
• Instead of establishing notability, your arguments and your actions upon the Article as well as its Talk page serve to suggest that you may be feeling some frustration at the impossibility of resolving the troublesome issues of Jake as a suitable subject here, while you may have inadvertently been demonstrating the dearth of legitimate coverage, and his consequent inadmissibility in the face of Wikipedia's tests for notability;
• Some of the properties of your statement are specifically listed as those to avoid in deletion discussions like this one, and it does more harm to your cause than any good.

None of us should feel committed to any cause, as such — don't you think? — except to the integrity of our encyclopedia.

Let me know if I can help you.

— Wordsmith (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

____________________________________________

.

I expect that it will just get deleted again-- this is the part that is always deleted by anonymous IP address editors every time it shows up in the article-- but given that the article is on the deletion discussion list, I put back into the article the material that has been repeatedly deleted, including the article in Forbes and the circuit court opinion:

• William Green, "There's one born every minute," Forbes, March 9, 1999 (article at Forbes.com)
• MBH Commodity Advisors, Inc. and Jacob Bernstein, Petitioners, v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Respondent. In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit - 250 F.3d 1052 (7th Cir. 2001) Decision (decision also available from caselaw)

Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: Acccording to the wikipeda history of Geoffrey.landis edits, he regularly vandalizes other peoples wikipedia entries, propogates and participates in edit warring, and has been formaly punished by wikipedia in the past by being banned from making entries for a significant time period. Geoffrey.landis has proven to be an exceptionally arrogant and highly biased individual who thinks he knows everything about every subject, and should be premanetly banned from any making wikipedia entries and/or edits due to his uncivilized anti-social behavior therein. As an example, his election for deletion of other more notable and more widely published successful authors entries in wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.153.184 (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2010

Please do not make personal attacks on other editors. Please adhere to the civility policy, assume good faith and observe wiki etiquette. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote of confidence, User: 76.200.153.184. Just as a comment, I notice that 76.200.153.184 has made no edits to any articles other than Jake Bernstein-- and my user page. I'll also note that Thor1964 has made no edits to any articles other than approximately 60 edits to Jake Bernstein. In fact there are a lot of anonymous editors who have done nothing except add promotional material to Jake Bernstein-- 76.247.107.66 and 99.163.50.178 and 76.254.84.164 for example, to pick just three of many. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep but the first step after keeping will be for someone unconnected to rewrite the article. Absurd promotionalism is not to be balanced by one-sided reports of adverse litigation, but by a fair treatment of the person. He's notable as an author because of the multiple books by major business publishers. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There's a paragraph in the Criticism section that appears to be a copyright violation, see for the source text. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

See also materials from . Looks like most of this is copied from his many self promotional web sites. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2010 (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.

ServiceLive

ServiceLive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for merge BACK IN MARCH FREAKING 2009 and nobody could be arsed. Use it or lose it. Sources seem too thin to even warrant a merge. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete this seems to be a mildly insignificant subsidiary for an independent article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment No need to discuss this any further, the old verdict of "merge" still stands. --Pgallert (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2010 (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.

Red Bar Radio

Red Bar Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An "internet radio" show (somebody hasn't checked the definition of radio) previously deleted, recreated, deleted G4, AfD'd and deleted again, undeleted for the user to add citations, AfDd no consensus, and has been languishing with a notability tag since 2008. Creator was Redbarradio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I wonder if there could possibly be a COI here? Tagged as A7 but given the history I thought it was probably better to bring it here. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable pod cast. Has a dozen or so mentions on non-notable blogs (many in "comments" sections) but is altogether invisible in reliable print or web media. I also saw the various mentions made in Wired and Talkers magazine - and IMO they're not "significant coverage" enough to warrant its own article. (My rule of thumb: the more desperate a COI account is to get their blog, podcast, etc. covered by Wikipedia, the more non-notable it is. YMMV.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as this show is the subject of in-depth coverage in reliable third-party sources referenced in the article, including Time Out Chicago, the Columbia Chronicle, and Newcity Chicago. The article needs some cleanup and the refs are bare urls but it crosses the notability threshold. - Dravecky (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like a local show with citations in the local press. I see nothing making this encyclopedic on the international level.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2010 (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.

Candy Manson

Candy Manson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can meet the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Deleted after initial AFD, survived 2nd AFD based on now-rejected "one-nomination" standard and on subject's claim of upcoming mainstream TV work, which never materialized. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Has not award's nominations in multiple years. No appearance on any television series. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1696323/ --Braghis (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral This is a very borderline case. I am not sure the article has been kept up to date. However, even if there were no wins in 2008 and 2009, I am not so sure that the nomination is so stale as to make deletion necessary yet. On the other hand since college athletes only get one calendar year to show professional experience if they have not won major awards, maybe this is due for deletion because there has only been one nomination and a two year void.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silverseren^C 09:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, leaning toward Keep vote I have tagged this article for rescue.

• "5 pornstars that prevail in the web" - Urgente 24
• "Rookie of the Week: Candy Manson" - GameLink
• "Jack's Playground: Big Ass Show 4" - X Critic

I have also added these three sources to the article. Silverseren^C 09:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO and the sources in the article are either unreliable or trivial. She has some reliable coverage here, but its not enough to meet WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Per Epbr123 - Fails WP:PORNBIO and no significant coverage to pass GNG. EuroPride (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2010 (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.

Robert Larsen

Robert Larsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable small college football coach, whose article was deleted at AfD two years ago. The article was userfied at the creator's request, and promptly restored by the creator with the claim that "Discovered also was a head coach at University of Chicago, added several sources." Upon an examination of the links in the article, not a single one of them discuss Larsen in substantive detail, as WP:RS requires, and half of them are simple collections of stats. Beyond that, the creator implies that the University of Chicago is, and was during Larsen's tenure, some big-time athletic school and therefore confers notability on its coaches. This is not the case; Chicago plays in Division III, a full three rungs below major college football and the lowest level of sport the NCAA sanctions at all. The article has been completely unimproved in over a year and a half. This article should never have been restored, and should be promptly deleted as failing WP:BIO and the GNG both.  Ravenswing  10:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Weak Keep I think many programs that have been both DI and DIII have coaches for their entire history considered as notable people here on WP. Since Chicago has such a storied history from the Amos Alonzo Stagg days, I think he is an important component to the complete history of Chicago football.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep clear-cut case of a bad faith nomination. FIRST: The "promptly restored" statement, which would seem to indicate merely a few days. In this case, the restoration took from November 2, 2008 until June 26, 2009, over seven months. SECOND: Nominator supplies a "creator implies" section, stating that the article creator (yes, that's me) implied that the school was a "big-time program" and yet avoides the statement in the article about the "modern era" when the school reinstated football at the Division III level. THIRD: Nominator calls for "prompt" deletion, implying a call for a speedy deletion instead of even having the discussion. Personally, I'm not sure by "promptly" the nominator means "right this minute" or the regular AfD discussion time period or seven months. FOURTH: Nominator states that "The article has been completely unimproved in over a year and a half" to which I have two responses: a) this is just not true either, as a simple check of the article history can provide, and b) who cares if it hadn't changed a bit in a year and a half, that's not a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Reply: You're right on the "year and a half;" I meant half a year, and that's about the only accurate statement you make. As far as the absurd notion that I'm calling for a speedy here, I've been on Wikipedia for seven years and have participated in hundreds of deletion discussions, and know very well the difference between AfD and speedies, but if you were genuinely curious, you might have considered asking without violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Moving along, of course you implied that Chicago is a big-time program; why else would being a coach there confer automatic notability that being a coach of a far smaller and more obscure school did not, and why would that mere assertion suddenly qualify the subject for an article? Finally, you fail to address the article's failure of the GNG.  Ravenswing  12:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment/Good Faith/Civility Please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John D. Schwender where it seems we are having the same discussion. It should likely be here because I beleive that the bad faith violations are more prevelant here--they have sadly become linked. I have made no personal attacks and am simply calling to the Wikipedia community to review what I believe to be lies posted by the nominator, as well as providing evidence to support it for the community to review.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Request/accurate statement You stated that "that's about the only accurate statement you make" in your comment and then accuse me of not being civil. Okay, I can take it. Please take the statments I made that you find not truthful and let's address them point by point.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment/Big Time School History shows that the article Revision September 23, 2009, (edited by Huangdi) confirms that the program was an NCAA Division III School. While I did not make that edit, I thought it was a good one. It's been in place over six months.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment/Nominator's experience I'm sure you have been on Wikipedia for quite some time, but I don't see how that is a reason to delete the article. Why would you post such a statement??--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment/Speedy-promptly Okay, you don't mean to speedy delete. Just strike the word "promtly" from your nomination. Until then, the statements are adding undue weight and distracting from the issue at hand--the article being considered for deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. In order to have proper encyclopedic scope, WikiProject College Football has endeavored to establish articles on the head coaches of the significant college football programs. That does not mean that every coach at every small college should have an article. The question is which programs are truly "significant." While Carroll and Chicago have had significant declines in their programs in recent years (including the years when Larsen was coach), both schools have historically had significant programs. Carroll played big-time football throughout the pre-World War II era, was involved in the game in which the first forward pass was thrown, and has produced 13 NFL players. Chicago has won two national football championships and seven Big Ten championships, produced several members of the College Football Hall of Fame (e.g., Berwanger, Des Jardien, Eckersall, Herschberger, Maxwell), and is the place where football giant Amos Alonzo Stagg made his name. Admittedly, neither Carroll nor Chicago has had a major football program in many years (even decades). This makes it a tough call on Larsen or other recent coaches at these schools. However, if we conclude that these two programs are significant (as they certainly were in the first half of the 20th Century), WikiProject Football's encyclopedic approach to coverage of such programs supports articles for head coaches of these programs. Accordingly, I lean towards keeping the articles. Cbl62 (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2010 (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.

David Weigel

David Weigel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:BIO. Just because the person has written a lot via newspaper blogs does not make the individual notable. Note that article had already been speedily deleted but was restored. As per the policy on "journalists", his individual work is not 1)regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors 2) had a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews or 3)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. -Ave Caesar (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep – Based on the fact that he is considered an expert in his chosen field as the following quotes show: “elite media journalist. ... David Weigel,” per the Washington Post on Oct 31, 2008 and by the Los Angeles Times quoting “David Weigel pointed out in multiple critiques of ... in the world of professional journalism” on June 11, 2008. In addition, there are quotes from NPR – Time – Dallas Morning News – the Irish Times – Washington Times plus several other reliable – certifiable – third party – independent sources that also attest to this fact, as shown here . Based on this information, Mr. Weigle meets our criteria for inclusion here at Wikipedia. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 21:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I think as a well-known national journalist, he is notable. The above comment by Shoessss supports this thought.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

He is a blogger, not a journalist. That's not to say bloggers can't be notable, but there is no proof of influence. --Ave Caesar (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Supporting the fact that Mr. Weigel meets the criterion of being a notable journalist is that he has appeared on multiple NPR shows (Weekend Edition, Fresh Air with Terry Gross - twice) and numerous times on the MSNBC evening cable news/political shows. In addition, he is frequently referenced when not on those shows by Wikipedia notables, including: Chris Hayes (Washington, D.C. Editor of The Nation), Ana Marie Cox (Washington Correspondent for GQ Magazine), and Rachel Maddow herself of the Rachel Maddow Show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolverstone (talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is the first and only edit made by the above user...Further, the user offers no proof of wide citation.--Ave Caesar (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep per comments of Shoessss and Wolverstone.--JayJasper (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

---

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep per comments above and the fact that Weigel was just snatched up by the Washington Post because of the unparalleled work he's currently doing covering the conservative movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.142.166 (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• It needs better sourcing, but I don't see why he's not notable. Keep, although that is not an endorsement of his ideas. 22:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. I was looking for information on this journalist and I found it here. That is what an encyclopedia is for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.71.241 (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable blogger per Wikipedia criteria.--98.218.126.193 (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep WP:AUTH: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors". Evidence of this has been supplied by Shoes. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:47, 13 April 2010 (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.