Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Kamin

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Kamin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Little more than a vanity piece. Has authored some non-notable items and tries to make things like "being quoted by Ann Landers and in the Congressional Record". Allegedly hosts a local PBS talk show. No sources and no significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a lot of people named "Ben Kamin" but simply adding the word "rabbi" to the Google News Archive search disambiguates and weeds out the false positives. The result is extensive coverage of this Ben Kamin in reliable sources, including an Ann Landers column just as the article asserts and the nominator was unable to find. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So are you going to share the significant coverage by reliable third party sources? I see him quoted here or there, but not articles about him.Niteshift36 (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Times, September 26, 1990. See WP:BEFORE. Cullen328 (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem Post, May 17, 1991, Chicago Tribune, July 7, 1996, San Diego Union-Tribune, October 29, 2001. Etc. Cullen328 (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator says he fails WP:AUTHOR. I see numerous reviews of his books going back decades. Cullen328 (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lecture me about WP:BEFORE. Instead of Wikilinking to the names of newspapers, how about if you give the link to the actual review? Use your time doing something useful instead of delivering pointless advices and links that go to nothing relevant. Or you could point out which of the 5 criteria in WP:AUTHOR that simply having a review fills? Niteshift36 (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The third section of WP:AUTHOR talks about creating a "collective body of work" that has received "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The fourth part, subsection (c), says the work "has won significant critical attention". These seven reviews of Ben Kamin's books show that he meets WP:AUTHOR: here, here, here, here, here, here, here. By the way, I was editing with an Android smart phone previously, which can't cut and paste website urls. I would have done so if I could, but thought to offer the dates of relevant newspaper articles, since I could find them in a few seconds. Cullen328 (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merely being reviewed is not "significant critial attention". One of these barely tops 200 words. Clearly, you and I differ one what significant means. I don't see merely being reviewed as "critical attention", nor do I think that was the intent when the guideline was written. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly meets "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", and in my opinion, book reviews are the essence of "significant critical attention" for authors. One of the reviews is 228 words, while the other six are significantly longer. We will have to agree to disagree on this one, and perhaps we will hear from some other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a "Publications" section listing his books, incorporating quotes about some of them published in four reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 01:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sourcing cited by Cullen328. Carrite (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being reviewed by a newspaper is definitely "significant critical attention". Consider how many books exist and how many get reviewed. Thanks to Cullen328 for finding and adding the sources. Francis Bond (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2011 (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.