Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simson Garfinkel
- 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Titoxd(?!?) 23:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of journalist graduates from Columbia and MIT. If there is something important about this person, please add it, else Delete. Nationalparks 22:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article is referenced in others and the person is notable enough. Bryce 04:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 08:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, he appears to be notable, although you wouldn't know it looking at the article. -- Kjkolb 10:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep He wrote the standard book for Internet Security (http://www.simson.net/bio.php), one of the first books on NeXT-Step programming, and many more. Article could use some more info, but the subject is valid. Neier 13:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Garfinkel is a major contributor to Wired and Popular Science as well as publications. Jtmichcock 23:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete notability is not established by this article, article is of very poor quality --Isolani 23:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the article quite clearly establishes that the subject satisfies the published author notability criterion of our Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies. Uncle G 02:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now that it has content. Nationalparks 01:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, whatlinkshere establishes its notability. Fixing the article should be easy. No need to delete it. - Mgm|(talk) 09:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. What the heck is the bias against writers and academics. A porn actor or indy band with 1/100th the influence gets kept, while important (semi-)academics get AfD'd. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The bias is not against writers and academics. We have large numbers of properly written articles about writers and academics that editors would not even consider nominating for deletion. The bias is against articles that tell us practically nothing of importance about the subject. I suggest a look at the state of this article at the time of nomination. For all that the article told readers, Garfinkel could have been just some random web logger. The way to avoid nomination for articles about book authors is to have at least the beginnings of a bibliography in the article (and indeed to mention that they are authors in the first place). Uncle G 12:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess. But I wouldn't put an article on AfD without at least a basic investigation of whether the subject itself was notable, even if the article failed to show it yet. A basic google test would show a huge number of hits for Garfinkel (myself, I knew well of him without even doing that; but sure some folks would not). But even for an area where I knew nothing, I wouldn't just assume the lack of current content meant lack of worthwhile possible content. (but it's for people that are minimally indicated as academics/writers where nominators ignore even the google test; for an indy band or porn actor, they at least do that basic test). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 13:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- They do the research because the articles on such subjects that come up for deletion generally do tell us about the subjects, unlike this one, and thus the initial question of who the article is even talking about, and thus a context for any Google searches, is firmly established. An article about a pornographic actress that told us as little about its subject as this one told us about Garfinkel (e.g. "Jane Doe is an actress who got a Ph.D. from Ohio State University in 2004.") would very probably receive the same treatment as this article did. Once again: The claim that there is bias against writers and academics has no basis in reality. The bias is against bad biography articles that say almost nothing of importance about their subjects. Uncle G 15:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess. But I wouldn't put an article on AfD without at least a basic investigation of whether the subject itself was notable, even if the article failed to show it yet. A basic google test would show a huge number of hits for Garfinkel (myself, I knew well of him without even doing that; but sure some folks would not). But even for an area where I knew nothing, I wouldn't just assume the lack of current content meant lack of worthwhile possible content. (but it's for people that are minimally indicated as academics/writers where nominators ignore even the google test; for an indy band or porn actor, they at least do that basic test). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 13:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The bias is not against writers and academics. We have large numbers of properly written articles about writers and academics that editors would not even consider nominating for deletion. The bias is against articles that tell us practically nothing of importance about the subject. I suggest a look at the state of this article at the time of nomination. For all that the article told readers, Garfinkel could have been just some random web logger. The way to avoid nomination for articles about book authors is to have at least the beginnings of a bibliography in the article (and indeed to mention that they are authors in the first place). Uncle G 12:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep as this figure is quite notable. [1] This biography is incomplete; as I recall, he also used to write for the pioneering and now defunct Internet Underground magazine until they were bought out by Ziff Davis in mid 1996 and subsequently cancelled. Hall Monitor 17:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, though I don't quite see enough bad faith to warrant speedy keep. Notable tech journalist and writer. Haikupoet 00:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep please because this journalist/writer is notable in technology Yuckfoo 03:58, 11 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.