Wiki How:Articles for deletion/Michael Shellenberger

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 keep. seicer | talk | contribs 22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Shellenberger

WP:BLP which breaches WP:ONEEVENT (event being publication of a co-authored essay later turned into a book). The move of relevant material to an article on the book (Break Through) makes what's left eminently deletable, as the subject's other activities are not notable (to date). NB as can be seen from Talk:Michael Shellenberger, the article was almost speedy-deleted in 2007, and the subject complained in 2009 about undue weight given to some minor consulting work relating to the political hot-potato of Venezuela. Deletion (because all the consulting work is non-notable) would solve the problem. Rd232 ^talk 21:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep. Is it really WP:BLP1E when someone writes a notable book, or is it WP:AUTHOR? Do we have a single case where the book is notable, but the author isn't? I'm also not sure that I agree the consulting work is non-notable: Lumina Strategies and American Environics each probably pass WP:ORG if someone were to bother writing articles about them. My mind can certainly be changed by counterexamples (and perhaps this is one of them because the book had two authors--though it was the people, not the book, that was singled out by Time magazine), but it seems to me that arguing that the book is notable makes the author notable, and the nominator isn't arguing the book isn't notable. As for Shellenberger being unhappy that the article is no longer one-sided and that his consulting work is in his article, it's a good example of WP:LUC. THF (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I very much doubt that either would pass WP:ORG (and I'm not convinced that even if they did that this would give notability to the founder - a form of "relationships do not confer notability", see WP:AUTHOR#Invalid criteria). Time singled out the authors because its approach was to seek "heroes", which could hardly describe the book. Also I disagree that the book being notable (which I haven't sought to prove or disprove, but I think probably is) means the authors are. In 2005 (prior to the book publication, but after the controversial essay which preceded it), the NY Times described the authors as "two little-known, earnest environmentalists in their 30's..."[1] Rd232 ^talk 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BLP#Articles about people notable only for one event is policy while WP:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals is a guideline so I think the first must be given more weight; in effect, the notability guideline also says at WP:BIO1E that Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person. JRSP (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the book is not really an event, and although that is what Shellenberger is known for, the coverage (including some of the sources cited in the article) is not only about the book. —Snigbrook 21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like nitpicking - publication of the book (which he only co-authored) is one event. And the other coverage is of things not notable - just normal business activities - which wouldn't justify an article if the book hadn't been published: ergo WP:ONEEVENT applies. Rd232 ^talk 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this in illegitimate interpretation of "one event" which is designed for tabloid level notability, or trivial events, or being a victim or bystander. If there;s anything genuine, it should not be covered there, and I so interpret the policy. I know the wording doesnt say this clearly, but it doesnt make sense to me otherwise. An author can be notable for a single book, and a review in both the NYT and the WSJ meets that. Plus Time & probably most other major sources. DGG (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I concur with DGG that this isn't what BLP1E is designed for, and we should be careful of interpreting it too strictly in this case. Everything in it is discussed in terms of news events, which is not what publication of a book is. Also, despite being on a policy page it is phrased in terms of a guideline ("if reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted", emphasis mine), so I don't think the argument that it overrides WP:CREATIVE is valid; at best, they are both on the same footing of being concepts that apply in most but not all cases. JulesH (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The spirit of it clearly applies here IMO, if not the letter. Further the subject doesn't IMO meet the WP:AUTHOR criteria. If the policy doesn't fit this situation, then we should consider changing the policy. Rd232 ^talk 11:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep. There are more than 300 references to Shellenberger in Nexis. More than 27,000 in Google. The entry of Schellenberger was created in December 2007. Deletion issue arose, as far as I can tell, when I included information, related to his lobbying activities on behalf of Hugo Chavez's government, that is perceived controversial by himself and two editors contributing in this page. There is precedent in Wikipedia about inclusion of information regarding similar conflict of interests with regards to funding Mine Your Own Business. To argue that a book is notable but the author isn't is, IMO, preposterous. Consulting work was notable enough to merit reference in reliable secondary sources. However having said this, I do believe Shellenberger should be entitled to having his entry deleted, if he so wishes. He has contributed to the entry, why not putting the question to him?--Alekboyd (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That you'd mention Mine Your Own Business here does nothing to persuade me that you've understood the issue. That PR work results in a PR person getting a couple of minor mentions in the press hardly seems demonstrable of notablility. Note that this is different than if it were actual consulting work being reported on due to that work being of interest - the mentions arise from PR work, which inherently involves dealing with the press. As for asking Shellenberger his opinion - he's already made it perfectly clear that he doesn't want undue weight given to the Venezuela consulting but you continue to insist on it, so asking for his opinion now looks disengenuous. Finally, as for Google hits, see WP:ATA#Google test. Same applies to Nexis (especially since this is a news db and as noted we are talking about PR work, so quality of hits is the issue). Rd232 ^talk 17:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you please provide secondary sources supporting that the subject's consulting work is notable? A single sentence in an article dealing about another subject is hardly a claim of notability IMO. JRSP (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garance Franke-Ruta wrote a lengthy article in The American Prospect where Shellenberger's & Nordhaus's consulting work was the centerpiece. THF (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- As far as lobbying for Chavez is concerned, sources are cited in entry.--Alekboyd (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This falls under WP:NPF. The sources merely cite the subject in passing, they do not show or claim that the consulting work is notable. However this deletion debate isn't the place to argue this further. Rd232 ^talk 17:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced, notable, likely to be a subject of inquiry. What to include can be debated later on the discussion page, although I'm not sure the subject should have an undue say Vartanza (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination is a misinterpretation of WP:BLP1E, which is intended to cover cases where people are caught up in events, not where they are notable for what they create. And the claim that this falls foul of WP:NPF is an even greater misinterpretation. That clause exists to protect the privacy of people who have been thrust into the public eye without wishing it. This article subject obviously doesn't fall into that category. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll concede that I'm interpeting BLP1E broadly - more broadly I guess than others would agree with (but define "event"... and is the logic so different for a book publication?). As to NPF - there is nothing in the written policy as stands that supports your argument. It may be historically true that this is how NPF came about but it isn't part of the policy - and again, I do not see why NPF should be limited as you say. Rd232 ^talk 03:59, 16 March 2009 (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.