Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth J. Frantzman

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seth J. Frantzman

edit
Seth J. Frantzman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable doctoral student and blogger. Fails WP:ANYBIO, fails general notability guidelines. The article editors seem to confuse writings by the subject with "significant coverage" about the subject. On-line, one can find some blogs, twitter and facebook postings, some articles written by him, book reviews on Amazon, but no substantial coverage about him. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —–– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks like WP:AUTHOR's "...is widely cited by their peers or successors" is close with several Google Scholar (remove the quotations since his middle name is not always used and minus the handful written by him, then there is another citation of him in Google Books) hits showing his work as citations. "Widely" might be questioned. There are also potential sources that are not currently shown in the article which contradicts the assertion that the available coverage is "by" and not "about". For example, Sabria Jawhar wrote this in response to the Saudi Arabia opinion. An official diplomatic response showed some notability and professionals discussing it shows even more. And although Criticism sections are frowned upon, there appears to be even more peers and potential RS discussing the guy. See the source attributed to Benjamin Pogrund as an example. I also recommend combing through the Google News Archives a little closer. It will take awhile since so may hits are simply articles he wrote but not all are. Here is a random one (I assume Cybercast News Service has a right slant but it appears reliable in this context). The article needs improvement but the minimum requirements (for an WP:IDEALSTUB at least) appear to be met or at least close enough that focus and time might be better spent finding sources over debating deletion.Cptnono (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per Cptnono. Frantzman is highly prolific journalist who has a regular column in the Jerusalem Post and writes for numerous other venues. As well as the sources in the article, and the sources pointed out by Cptnono, I would add that the conservative biographical encyclopedia Discover the Networks uses several Sethman articles as a resource for their article "Israel's Academic Fifth Column". His work is referenced in the book "The Historical Jesus of the Gospels, by Craig S. Keener. He is quoted here in CNS news Harassment, Islamic Radicalism Drive Flight of Palestinian Christians and the Jewish Times of South JerseyThe Real Story, by Stephen Kramer and a further mention here in the New Jersey Jewish News by Andrew Silow-Carroll [1] Numerous letters to the editor in the Jerusalem Post mention him by name, both for praise and criticism. He is notable and it is probable that there are readers who would like to have more information about him and so this article would be important for those readers. Indeed the article could be improved (like most) but it should not be deleted. Stellarkid (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jezhotwells. A truly non-notable blogger. It seems that this article is receiving keep votes only because Frantzman's ideological views regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict are the same as certain Wikipedians. Factomancer (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your !vote is unaccompanied by any policy-based rationale, nor did you comment on the references offered, merely commented on the contributors. So noted. Stellarkid (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't appear to understand the WP:NPA policy; an observation on why an article is receiving keep votes is not a personal attack against yourself. Chill out.
As for your claim that my vote was "unaccompanied by any policy-based rationale", I clearly seconded Jezhotwell's argument. Accusing me of not having a policy-based rationale when I clearly referenced Jezhotwell's policy-based argument is a bad-faith personal attack.
As for the "references offered" they seem to be a smattering of minor partisan websites, exactly where you'd expect a blogger to turn up. "Numerous letters to the editor in the Jerusalem Post mention him by name, both for praise and criticism." LOL! Thanks for the laugh, I needed that! Factomancer (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like profs, journalists write for a living, so their publications (often argued on the basis of their number) are not necessarily sufficient to satisfy notability guidelines. The main problem I see here is that, while the subject has written articles, blog entries, and op-eds, there don't seem to be multiple, significant, and independent sources that talk substantively about him (i.e. the original reason for appearing in AfD). I initially thought the "'guardians' of Israeli academia" piece would clinch this for "keep", but when I checked the article, it only mentions him once, and rather trivially at that. Most of that article talks about other people and in more detail. The claim that he "has appeared on the BBC World Service" might also have tipped the scales, but there's no explanation of the context (i.e. was it a story about him, or was it just a short bit of him reporting something, was it multiple appearances or just one, etc.) and there's no accompanying source for this claim. The Jim Kolbe piece and its controversy strike me as a bit of a tempest in a teapot (the top hit for the title is this very wp page) and not something that appreciably furthers a claim of notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I agree that GNG is short but does it meet WP:AUTHOR in your view?Cptnono (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid not because his work has evidently had little, if any impact (see below) and so he doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR #1 (nor obviously any of the other criteria, which are fairly more specific). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Did you review the Google Scholar hits?Cptnono (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I found h-index=1, as discussed below. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. As attested by the sources in the article, he is quoted in numerous reliable sources, the clear mark of a notable writer/journalist. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the article actually show that "he is quoted in numerous reliable sources". Checking the refs, I see that ref 1 is a dead link, refs 2-5 are articles written by him in his role as a columnist, ref 6 makes no mention of him, ref 7 is an article from some organization called the "Cybercast News Service" (not Catholic News Service, as the article claims) which does quote him, ref 8 is his blog, ref 9 is his amazon.com profile, refs 10-15 are more of his book reviews, op-eds, blogs entries and such, ref 16 is terse response to ref 15, ref 17 makes no mention of him, ref 18 appears to be another op-ed of his, ref 19 is a blog that makes an oblique allusion to him (though does not evidently name him), ref 20 makes a trivial mention of him (as described above), and ref 21 is another of his pieces. The article further claims (in different sections) that he's written >50 op-eds and 8 articles in learned journals. One of these articles shows up in WoS, but has never been referenced (h-index = 0). The others seem to be in publications that are either too new (i.e. Middle East Quarterly is peer-reviewed starting only in winter 2009) or too obscure to be indexed. The truth seems to be that, with the exception of a single web-based piece from an obscure news organization (ref 7) that quotes him, this person's op-ed/blog/column work has gone basically unnoticed by the larger community. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Google Scholar is linked at the top of the page with more hits.Cptnono (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Agricola44. Being quoted in reliable sources does not make somebody notable, being covered by reliable sources does. None of the sources makes anything more than a trivial mention of the person. If there are sources focusing on the person or on his work then there could be an article on him, but the article is currently a puff piece pretending to be an encyclopedia biography. nableezy - 16:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As far as I can tell, Frantzman is a rather prolific graduate student, who maintains his own blog, and writes op-eds in newspapers. He doesn't seem particularly notable, and the article itself has quite a bit of exaggerated puffery. Also worth noting that Frantzman appears to be a Wikipedia editor, who has edited his own article as Sfrantzman, and probably created this article on himself as Samsfranklin21. Samsfranklin21 was around for only two days, created this article and edited another on a tiny logging camp in Maine, where Frantzman is from and which Frantzman also edited in 2007, and which mentions the Frantzman family). It's clearly the same editor, and the editor was probably just creating the article as a vanity piece and didn't want their own name as the creator. ← George talk 01:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I've opened a sock puppet investigation on Samsfranklin21, the creator of this article. ← George talk 02:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COI is not a notability problem. Agreed with your reasoning that there is a COI though.Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - even if my suspicions that person created this article as an autobiography are correct, that wouldn't necessarily mean it should be deleted. My reasoning for my delete vote is based on a general lack of notability though. I skimmed through the Google Scholar results, but I didn't really see anything more than what you'd find for the average graduate student - a couple of papers, and a handful of citations to those papers. If the article is kept, it will need some serious work to tone down the exaggerated claims though. ← George talk 02:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow bloggers (except for Romero!) or academia that much anymore so still think "widely" could be argued depending on the interpretation. It appears sufficient when couplded with the sources that are available to me still but quality wise it is not very good. I made a mention on the talk page about blowing out most of the current citations if it is kept.Cptnono (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the crux of the problem for me. Even if this article is kept, where will we find reliable sources that discuss Frantzman himself? I think Frantzman wrote parts of this article himself, meaning a lot of what is contained in the article is not cited (or likely citable) to reliable sources, which will become a major problem. Even if he could, technically, have an article, where would we find reliable sources that discuss where and when he was born? ...his education? I can try to clean up the article, but I took a quick look before I commented here, and I think a lot of the information in it will need to come out, reducing what is there to a stub. If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? If a person is potentially notable, but nobody writes anything about them, are they notable? ← George talk 02:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have enough secondary sources to summarize his views (especially the criticism). However, personal details for something like an infobox would have to be from a primary source. So keeping the balance needed to not let the article be based on the primary source would be a challenge but maybe not impossible.Cptnono (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. As I observed above, almost every single source is an op-ed or some such written by him – these are not secondary sources but rather WP:OR. Comprehending the difference is crucial. I see that an article from a student-run college newspaper has now been added, but again, this is a piece from an obscure source that does not substantively discuss him. I think the elephant in the room remains: this person is a graduate student that has written lots of really really minor op-eds and blog pieces, but has not yet made the accomplishments associated with notability. I think what would have to be shown to legitimately pass here is that he won some major journalism award, or held a top or notable post in some organization (academia, news service, ed. of an academic journal, etc.), or broke a major story, or authored a body of work that is demonstrably notable by way of others having noticed it, cited it, written about it, etc. You mentioned GS cites above, but when you check, you find basically the same assessment of his work: h-index = 1. We can very safely conclude that there has not been any sort of substantial notice or uptake of his work. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Then you simply didn't look hard enough. There are independent papers citing him and secondary sources not by him provided up above. Agreed that he has not done much but one (all that is needed) of the aspects of WP:AUTHOR might be met and there is some (I doubt enough for GNG) independent coverage.Cptnono (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"up above" where? Would you kindly relist those here so that all the panelists can easily examine them? You also seem to think that sources alone are sufficient – they're only necessary. The case where some local coverage (e.g. neighborhood newspaper) talks about someone probably qualifies as WP:RS, but doesn't mean that person is notable. And, so far, this about what we have for Frantzman: really thin coverage by sources that are basically obscure. I'll gladly change my position if I see something substantive, but so far there's nothing. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Up above where there are links to " – news · books · scholar · images" If you don't know how to Google sources or click on links made availableyou should not participate in Afds. This guys GNG is poor and I don;t mind people saying no but disregaring sources because you simply fail to try is ridiculous.Cptnono (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess you've really taught me a thing or two! I see now that you mistakenly equate citations to references with the references themselves. As I said a few items above, I did check GS and the results show nothing notable. What I really don't understand is your own contradictory position, which is to say on one hand that his "GNG is poor", but on the other hand to still advocate keep. Perhaps you should consider changing positions. Is there any credence to Factomancer's speculation above that this article is getting some "keep" votes related to the subject's ideology? Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Agricola44, there is no "substantial coverage" in "reliable sources" of the subject of this article. The attempts above to pass off letters in newspapers and minor opinion peices in anewsppaer, along with co-authorships of some non peer reviewed articles. The subject fails WP:ACADEMIC, WP:CREATIVE(same as WP:AUTHOR), and WP:BIO. There is no reason that has been produced for this article to exist. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jezhotwells and the lack of GS citations. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Agricola44's careful analysis of the inadequacy of the sourcing of this article. As a blogger and a graduate student, the only reasonable notability guideline is WP:GNG (not WP:PROF which he clearly fails) but we don't seem to have enough in-depth coverage about Frantzman in reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 14 links in Google Scholar [2] is nothing to sneeze at. He has a regular column in Jerusalem Post. He has been used as a reference for a historical work. He has been quoted in CNS a number of times, the Jewish Times, New Jersey Jewish News, Haaretz, been used as a source for Discover the Networks. Can't understand why that wouldn't be enough. Stellarkid (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably worth reviewing the sources you listed. If you actually go through the Google Scholar results, you'll find that almost none of them are worth "sneezing at". Eleven are reviews he wrote of other peoples' books; two are papers he co-wrote, and one I can't access. He doesn't have a column in the Jerusalem Post, he's an opinion columnist - someone who doesn't work for the newspaper, but sends them letters expressing their own opinion, some of which get printed as op-eds. He is cited by the Cybercast News Service, though I've only seen one such article. The Jewish Times of South Jersey and the New Jersey Jewish News are hardly notable publications (neither has a Wikipedia article, for instance). A Haaretz article does mention him as a possible member of some "vigilante group", but that's about it. Discover the Networks, a database dedicated to finding connections between people "leftwing agendas", isn't particularly notable either, as it just lists some of the articles he wrote for the "vigilante group" Haaretz mentioned, in a pseudo-blog format. Basically, his notability comes down to a couple papers he's written (that I haven't seen anyone actually cite), a lot of book reviews (especially on Amazon; again, hardly notable), and a passing mention in CNS and Haaretz. ← George talk 07:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Agricola44. No real evidence of notability. --Crusio (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Agricola44 and George. (Full disclosure: My first contact with User:Sfrantzman was over the Palestinian village Artas, which he started, ....as Artas, Israel. Well, the village is on the occupied West Bank (I moved it.)) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_J._Frantzman&oldid=1254997389"