Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Rabinowitz

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 delete. After one discounts the opinion by AngelicMrJobs, an account with two edits both of which relate to this subject, consensus is that the required significant coverage in reliable sources does not exist. Sandstein 07:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Rabinowitz

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

I doubt the subjects notability, even with 110 references in the article. Most of them are simple PR, others do not mention the subject at all. A search on Google shows only pages like twitter, facebook, etc. Kind regards NiTen (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't examined all 110 citations yet, but the ones I looked at didn't establish notability. I lean toward deletion. Majoreditor (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've removed the vast majority of them and here's why: while Rabinowitz is either mentioned or makes a statement in many, ultimately they are all just trivial mentions. He's quoted or mentioned, but very briefly and he is not the focus of any of those articles. I wouldn't even say that he's the focus of the sources I left on the article. I'll do a search, but so far I'm leaning towards deletion myself. I just wanted to state for any incoming editors that the previous sources did not show notability. They establish that he's an expert, but being an expert isn't notability in and of itself. As far as the original editor goes that added all of the citation spam, trivial sources do not show notability and WP:REFBLOAT can actually discredit an article faster than a lack of citations would.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here's the thing: I can find brief mentions of Rabinowitz in various places, but at no point have I seen anything that is actually about him or focuses on him in-depth. I tried seeing if his theory is notable, but it isn't. The only person who really seems to have spoken about Rabinowitz's theory is Rabinowitz himself. He's just not notable at this point in time. He's someone that might be usable as a RS in the future, but being an authority or an expert on a subject is not the same thing as achieving notability. He just happens to have more brief mentions than others do, but no amount of trivial mentions will give notability. We need in-depth sources to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not an expert in working with Wikipedia but I am a balanced and dispassionate reviewer of media and historical figures in general, and I would like to make the case that Tokyogirl79 should not delete sources and nearly blank out the article while it is proposed that the article be deleted. In so doing this makes for an imbalances review on whether the article should be deleted. Tokyogirl79 has acknowledged not having examined all of the references that deleted. In fact, if it can be said that some sources are weaker than others, Tokyogirl79 has actually left the WEAKEST sources intact, which 3 or so out of 100+. I would like to assume good faith that on Tokyogirl79's part this has not been done intentionally to slant the case toward delete. To wit, I would like to propose that in the interest of fair and more informed review you, Tokyogirl79, restores the references and text for the article during the AfD review process for all to analyze clearly.§Melgomac (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Melgomac (talk)[reply]
Keep. Unless someone objects with a specific objection to my good faith, let it be known and open that I not only was the original indicator of most (but not all) of said references to the subject at hand, but I also just took several hours to re-read all the source material indicated in the references. I can confirm that about 90% of the references are from mainstream news organizations such as the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News and National Public Radio and the link, and seemingly and evidently have nothing to do with public relations. As Tokyogirl79 has indicated and acknowledged, being an expert in a field does not make a public figure notable. However, implicit in that acknowledgement is an acknowledgement of the expert nature of the subject public figure. And, although the 110 references have subsequently been deleted, as has been mentioned, about 90% of them are in mainstream media -- therefore, this acknowledged expert and corresponding expertise is frequently brought to forefront in mainstream and notable media. Furthermore, a laudable purpose of Wikipedia in general is of course as an encyclopedia, the nature of which is to be used as a repository of information on notable things, places, and people, to educate self-seekers of information when they desire to research who is referenced in mainstream media on a recurring basis as an apparent expert. It is patently clear that to me when you see a person's name mentioned in mainstream media in at least 100 individual and distinct places over a period of a several years, in different contexts, that the subject figure is notable. I therefore vote for Keep. However, although not an expert in how to use Wikipedia as an editor albeit with a passionate belief in the notability of this article's subject coupled with a DISpassionate ability to edit the article itself, unless someone objects to my good faith with a specific reason I would like to restore the references and text of the article AT LEAST DURING THE REVIEW process, for all to make a more fully informed delete/keep decision. §Melgomac —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After further review of the sources I find myself agreeing with nominator's rationale. The sources are either non-notable or contain passing references to the subject. Majoreditor (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did any1 actually read all the refs? yeah, I didnt either. But I did spot check. Many do just quote the guy as someone pointed out while others of them more prominently feature him opining or refer to him. I have been loyally reading Wall Street Journal for years as an oil and gas trader myself and from the beginning I had started seeing Rabinowitz name especially because I always read Commodities Corner on Wall St Journal Marketwatch. I see also radio and TV reports links and he was talk host on the radio in LA. I see you are not supposed to use a Google test to determine fate of articles as someone did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Google_test. AngelicMrJobs (talk) AngelicMrJobs (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: just wondering how accounts with only two edits (the first being 13 months old) directly find their way to this discussion. Anyhow. As mentioned by Tokyogirl above, the sources simply mention his name but none of them establish notability. Some even dont mention him at all. And please read the Google guideline: Overall, the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number. Thats all what I said in my statement, the search did not deliver any quality hits, therefore I doubt notability of the subject. --NiTen (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Interesting. I will say that I make no qualms about being a vigorous and vocal defender of keeping this article's existence because I believe strongly in the notability of the subject individual. While I make a heartfelt and concerted effort to follow Wikipedia's rules and suggestions, and don't take the subject AfD personally (as admonished by Wikimedia Foundation guidelines), I fully believe that this article meets all many notability criteria. I hope you are not implying I had something to do with kind of "rousing the interest" or worse in the article considering MrJobs time frame since his last edit, because I did not and hope you assume good faith; Wikipedia says it's extremely difficult to determine that kind of thing and we are also certainly supposed to assume good faith in areas of question. I suppose I am overly-sensitive. Anyway, back to the core of my directly-related comment, actually when I just did a Google search on end of the first page of search results, there is a MarketWatch article about gold commodity pricing. MarketWatch is a large part of the Wall Street Journal and is effectively their entire securities and financial markets (and politics and news impacting financial markets) coverage department. Now, if you're asserting that the Wall Street Journal is not a quality hit and if you want to discuss whether the Wall Street Journal is a reliable source that's a whole different discussion. I kind of half remember that article and it becoming a reference source on the Wikipedia article but I don't remember whether that particular article is especially momentous. But there are many others that clearly are that I think have either been just taken out entirely or just simply passed over in this AfD review -- for example, we're talking about KTLA Television News which is one of just one or two TV news stations in L.A., a profile on National Public Radio with Terry Gross's Fresh Air and CNN with I think Anderson Cooper 360 and also being a host on what was a few years ago the talk radio station in L.A. with the highest listenership that also had Howard Stern on it and Tom Leykis. These are not just brief mentions. But even if they were, the sheer volume of opinions sought from Rabinowitz over years and on what are really diverse topics (though obviously mostly commodities) is indicative of notability worthy of being able to research who the subject is. Other than that, I have no opinion ;-). Love to everybody..... § Melgomac (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Apologies for having two comments in a row and apologies for potentially being verbose, but I am making my best effort not to while still effectively communicating my points in a thorough and precise fashion. This Google discussion is bothering me because although I understand his contention (NiTen) quality vs. number of results (although I disagree about the poor quality), but still I think AfD Google discussions are at the very least a slippery slope to going contrary to Wikipedia AfD avoidance recommendations ...Onward to the meat of the discussion: One commenter mentioned Google hits while another commenter mentioned the impending "Fiscal Cliff." If you follow any of the news channels on TV or in newspapers you are aware that the Fiscal Cliff is the most major US domestic political news going on right now. I am a bit obsessed with all this, granted...I work in the commodities industry as well, yet I do not know nor have I ever met this person so I believe I maintain my neutral point of view and unbiased stance on the notability criteria. Anyway, if you do a Google search for the last 24 hours for "seth rabinowitz" in quotes, one of those few results is actually today's (!!) Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch where he relates a Jon Lennon song to Democrats and Republicans working in harmony (my word is "harmony," no pun intended), on the second page of the article. My point is not the Beatles' song, but rather that obviously his opinion at least with regard to public financial things matters enough for the Wall Street Journal and CNN and Forbes and public radio and the like to seek his opinion over and over and over again spanning many years, and apparently starting when the financial crisis first hit in 2007. I initially became interested in this after seeing his name in the paper and Googling it. It was my first real interest in Wikipedia. How else can you find out about an individual whose name is frequently in the press if not by searching an online encyclopedia? It seems like a disservice to the Wikipedia community and a de-valuing of Wikipedia in general to remove entries like that. The onset of the financial crisis is going on 6 years ago and the major financial news references go back at least that long it seems, radio and TV hosting even before that. Here is today's Wall Street Journal article link...I have not edited the Wikipedia article to include it but am only pasting the link here. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/any-fiscal-cliff-deal-will-do-for-oil-gold-2012-11-29?siteid=nbch §Melgomac (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorry but that is simply his job. He is a commodities analyst, so he may be quoted a few times regarding this special topic by journalists. Also a farmer may be quoted in 20 articles about farming or an marketing manager may be quoted a dozen times in articles on his company, but that still does not make these people notable. Also the fact that more than 50 % of the references are from only two sources (marketwatch and smartblog) only indicate that he is a frequent source for short quotes in these two publications and rarely has any relevance for other publications. Best regards --NiTen (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We are going in circles here -- you say being quoted doesn't make someone notable. I reply that he's notable not merely because of that but rather also because of being a radio host, being on national radio, on TV news as a pundit, being featured in articles in major news sources, AND because of 100 unique major news sources quoting for unique situations at different times and years who sought his opinion (not just about commodities but also political commentary, etc.) and there are probably many more that weren't references or referenced, and you reply that being quoted 20 (or 100 times) in national newspapers doesn't make a person notable your view. I respond about the subject's TV news appearances, political commentary, radio hosting make the subject notable, and you retort that 20 quotes are his job or a farmer's or marketing manager's job but ignore the rest of the notability. I am saying even ignoring what you didn't ignore, and considering the rest of the notability that you didn't refer to, it still meets the notability criteria. In other words, even if 10,000 quotes on 10,000 different days on the cover of the New York Times for 10,000 different topics doesn't satisfy your individual barometer of notability by opinion being sought by news organizations -- so fine, let's assume your opinion is gospel for the sake of furthering the argument to its conclusion to the exclusion of reductio ad absurdem -- there is also being featured in the same news organizations' columns and programs, being on KTLA TV news regularly, being featured on National Public Radio, being on CNN Anderson Cooper 360, being a radio host on KLSX radio in Los Angeles, etc. That's my point.§Melgomac (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to avoid going round in circles then the best thing to do would be for you to identify three or four specific examples where Rabinowitz is featured in articles in major news sources. Rather than vague statements such as "featured in the same news organizations' columns and programs ... being featured on National Public Radio" give us the precise details of a few of the columns and programs where he has been featured, as opposed to quoted or mentioned. I have sampled a dozen or two of the sources listed in the article and can find no examples of such featuring. We are not working according to anyone's "individual barometer of notability", but by Wikipedia's barometer, which requires significant coverage, as described at WP:N. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I would be glad to satisfy your request herein, and I will in this comment. It is important in a discussion to acknowledge areas of agreement; I am delighted to note that the previous user appears to agree that we had been going in circles. However, note that something can be unspecific without necessarily being vague, but instead of being offended at the unnecessary use of the word "vague" I will assume good faith that it wasn't written for the purpose of merely being provocative or insulting. In fact that I wasn't specific, yet also not vague in my comment above. Anyway, the following sources featuring the subject have been deleted from the reference list by a user above as part of an en masse deletion of the references list because the deleting user asserted that they were only brief mentions, but they could not be more the opposite in reality. However, I am timid to re-insert them into the actual article not being a Wikipedia expert out of fear for starting some kind of a battle or doing something wrong, but they do in fact either feature the subject or indicate the subject's activity as host or participant in nationally or regionally televised or aired (radio) on major channels and stations (you'll note that it isn't a Wikipedia requirement that sources be verifiable on the web, but rather verifiable "somewhere", like in the Library of Congress, e.g.: "The Daytona Beach News-Journal, The Truth About Libertarians. December 4, 2002," "August 4–14, 2007, KTLA TV News Los Angeles, Tribune Corporation, Channel 5 & 3" I don't have time to go thru the complete list to see what others do or I am not familiar with the others enough to just pick and choose what is satisfactory among the deleted references. There is one more I can remember though that is a National Public Radio segment out of L.A. with NPR's Marketplace with Kai Ryssdal featuring Rabinowitz around 6-7 years ago, and let me be clear that I when say "featuring" in this case I mean either about or at a minimum partially focused on.§Melgomac (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be grasping at straws. Fleeting mentions like these don't establish notability. Majoreditor (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No straw grasping -- no one would say being a radio host on the highest listernship FM talk radio station in Los Angeles is a fleeting mention, nor is a being featured on NPR which is national radio...you know Terry Gross Fresh Air, Marty Moskowain, Talk of the Nation, Marketplace Kai Ryssdal, etc..."This is NPR". It is the exactly the opposite of fleeting mentions. A thousand individual mentions and and quotes are distracting everyone from the sufficient core of foci and features establishing notability.§Melgomac (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Occasional mentions on radio don't necessarily establish notability, whether in spot markets or nationally syndicated shows. These mentions don't seem to amount to much at all. Majoreditor (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Agreed, however occasional mentions on radio are not the situation here. The subject was the host of a radio program in addition to have multiple unrelated radio, article, and TV mentions and quotes, features on TV, radio and in print, authorship in print, etc., etc., etc., as has been re-iterated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melgomac (talk • contribs) 01:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Carpetbombing an article with citations is not useful. I did not go through all of the sourcing but from what I did look at, there's no significant coverage about him. Asked to point out the best sources, "The Daytona Beach News-Journal, The Truth About Libertarians. December 4, 2002," was put forth. As far as I can tell, that was a letter to the editor and not an actual article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I asked above for some specific examples of where Rabinowitz has received significant coverage, but no such examples have been offered in reply, and I can find none. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's really a shame to experience absolutely terrible communication on the part of editors -- there are really 3 basic problems and there are loud warnings about exactly this in the Wikipedia guidelines: 1) it seems people read neither responsive comments nor references themselves, the latter is something to which users here have readily admitted, 2) people get a rush on the idea of deletion perhaps because they have a feeling of empowerment, 3) they are dismissive in deference to the herd without specific consideration. It's a pity, because Wikipedia could be so much better. It makes me actually just want to give up because no matter how specific I get, I get an implicit "talk to the hand" response..."not listening...la-la-la-la." I am asking, why am I wasting my time making it feel like I am talking to a wall? It's extremely demotivating to think people just get off on the idea that if they felt slighted, they turn around a stick an unwarranted dagger in you to show you who is boss. Example: How much more specific can one get than writing the subject was a radio show host of 97.1 FM in Los Angeles with the call letter K L S X, which hosted both Howard Stern and Tom Leykis, as the most popular talk radio station in Los Angeles? The station is now defunct after a change of ownership to CBS which changed the format to music. If people complain there are too many references, that is just ridiculous; references are GOOD THINGS people -- yes, they need to be cleaned up, vetted, sorted, processed, some probably need to be deleted. Does that mean none contain significant coverage? I just gave you one very good example of something specific that's significant. Don't assume that the ones you saw that have mentions and quotes from the Wall Street Journal are representative of all the others...that is just lazy, stupid, and ineffective. Let's be proud Wikipedians.§Melgomac (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2012 (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.