Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Meyrowitz

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 No consensus --JForget 00:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Meyrowitz

Created by what appears to be a WP:SPA, peacocks running wild, zero sources that aren't written by the subject... has that awful yet distinctive odor of home-baked vanity... Ψν^Psi_nu 02:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, only got half way through and the sugar coating was giving me cavities. Lots of vanity and posing going on, not so much sources or notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharmboy (talk • contribs) 03:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep The article needs a lot of work (I'm the one that stuck the peacock tag on), but the subject seems notable: multiple books published, articles in Columbia Journalism Review...--NapoliRoma (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick clarification As near as I can tell, only one book published - the 1995 reference is an article in a compendium of some sort. I don't see any CJR articles or any other source that passes WP:RS in the search I did. Could be wrong, but still think this isn't worthwhile. Ψν^Psi_nu 03:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops When I looked at the bottom of the article, my eye conflated the "works" and "references" section. So, one book, but Oxford University Press isn't a vanity imprint. I still think there's enough here for notability; it just needs to be ruthlessly edited. "Horrible" isn't a criterion for deletion, is it?--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oddly enough, it turns out the CJR article is already noted in WP here.--NapoliRoma (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to indicate notability, though the article is still horribly infested by peacocks and seems to have no external sourcing. That isn't a reason to delete, though... Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 03:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pharmboy. This article is horrible and there isn't much notability there. Tavix (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I particularly enjoy the way he's highlighted his own name in bold every time. The guy is not notable, except maybe for being able to run a few hundred words onto a page without actually saying anything. Lankiveil (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: Whatever this is, it isn't a biography. At best it's a discussion of his works and philosophy. Corvus cornix_talk 18:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I decided to take a weed whacker to the article, more as an exercise to see if it wound up as anything more significant than "mostly harmless" than anything else. I think it's actually much less objectionable now.--NapoliRoma (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It only took me a few seconds to find these 658 sources, so clearly notable. All of the other comments above are reasons for editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

scholar.google.com ! Hadn't heard of that before; worth the price of the discussion right there.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I noticed (as I'm sure had many others) that the article creator, and many of the early contributors (eg Constantinidesmas214, Cameronmas214, MillerMAS214, Slocombemas214) have usernames ending in MAS214. I wondered if maybe Prof. Meyrowitz teaches a class MAS214, it seems his departments classes start with CMN, not MAS. Googling Joshua Meyrowitz & MAS214 generates hits at Macquarie University. I conclude there's a MAS214 class at Macquarie assigned to made WP edits, and this is the product of that exercise and not a vanity autobiography on the part of Prof Meyrowitz or his students. Pete.Hurd (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as the Google scholar results above, his book is used in a number of classes at different universities in the US, UK, Korea, etc. Seems to be a pass for WP:PROF #3: "The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Joshua Meyrowitz happens to be quite referenced by one of the first Macedonian language textbooks in the field of Communications, so I think this is a clear indicator of notability. Peacock terms are not really a reason for an article deletion; the article should be edited in a more encyclopedic fashion. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2008 (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.