This is an old revision of this page, as edited by E.M.Gregory (talk | contribs) at 19:15, 18 May 2015 (comment on rename proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:15, 18 May 2015 by E.M.Gregory (talk | contribs) (comment on rename proposal)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Avi Tuschman
- Avi Tuschman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
single book, with excepts from reviews. That's not enough for notability as NAUTHOR. DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, 1 book isn't enough, especially when all the sources are reviews. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Admittedly, when I read the first 2 sentences, which semed to assert that Tuschman is an "evolutionary biologist" without an advanced degree who was born in "Stanford, California" (for the non Stanford-alums reading this, Stanford is in Palo Alto and although the university has a zipcode, the Standfod maternity hospital is in Palo Alto, as is the faculty housing. So unless he was born in a dorm...). HOWEVER, the sources are there. WP:AUTHOR stipulates "work must have been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This first-time author got reviews in major publications. There's a profile in the Palo Alto Weekly (it's not your typical "local" paper, this is Palo Alto). more abstractly, the book generated discussion of the idea it proposed, again in serious places including NPR and the Georgetown Public Policy Review. Also, he did get the Phd a few sentences in, and reviews ran in many of the Anglosphere's major publications , as did interviews So, yeah, a first time author can certainly pass WP:GNG this one does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note that the Forbes article is a contributor blog without editorial control (i.e. not a WP:NEWSBLOG see Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_176#Forbes.com_blogs). SmartSE (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- point taken. But what I'm seeing is that he sparked conversation among serious people, like other Forbes "contributors" here's a whole Carrie Sheffield column on his book . Salon.com published a chapter or two. And, in general, the major outlets gave him serious coverage. The Washington Post started assigning him reviews of other "big idea" books, a meaningful accolade. Taking this up one level, what is the point of deleting an article on a anthropologist/author who has made this kind of splash with a first book?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with your !vote, but just thought I should point out that coverage from a Forbes contributor isn't that helpful for establishing notability. As for why this was nommed, see this thread at COIN. SmartSE (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, saw that. I understand the COI/paid editing problem. And while I have to look through the whole list, I think Tuschman's publisher should fire the guy, or get a refund because it is a truly lousy bio.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with your !vote, but just thought I should point out that coverage from a Forbes contributor isn't that helpful for establishing notability. As for why this was nommed, see this thread at COIN. SmartSE (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- point taken. But what I'm seeing is that he sparked conversation among serious people, like other Forbes "contributors" here's a whole Carrie Sheffield column on his book . Salon.com published a chapter or two. And, in general, the major outlets gave him serious coverage. The Washington Post started assigning him reviews of other "big idea" books, a meaningful accolade. Taking this up one level, what is the point of deleting an article on a anthropologist/author who has made this kind of splash with a first book?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note that the Forbes article is a contributor blog without editorial control (i.e. not a WP:NEWSBLOG see Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_176#Forbes.com_blogs). SmartSE (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Rename to Our Political Nature. I don't think that WP:AUTHOR is met but WP:BKCRIT is per and other sources. Doing this would concentrate the article on the book, rather than the author, for who the sourcing is substantially less strong. SmartSE (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would support refactoring it to be about the book, as the book seems notable enough, the person not. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- oppose renaming/moving to book title. The book certainly could support a stand-alone article. But sources for an article on Tuschman exist. They just need to be added to the article. Which should be 'kept. as I iVoted above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)