Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Troster

:{{la|Lawrence Troster}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Lawrence Troster}})

not notable, no references in googleland news at all Soosim (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• I am a little surprised. I see an article with two serious footnotes and a long list of publications. How did this article get to Afd? Debresser (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• really surprised? the two'serious' footnotes are: a) a bio sheet from an organization he is employed at; and b) a press release from his alma mater stating that he and 47 others received an honorary doctorate for the mere fact that they have been in the business for 25 years. i am not dissing 25 years as a pulpit rabbi - dealing with synagogue boards and members, etc., but c'mon on.....it wasn't like he was chosen for something he did. Soosim (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - seems to be a prolific publisher of his thoughts and a prolific blogger, but there seems to be very little coverage about Troster online. Re 'long list of publications', authors aren't automatically notable. Sionk (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - True, no hits in Google News, but a "past month" web search yields his HuffPost articles and a post from J Street about hiring him as Rabbinic Director. I'm inclined to let the article stand. The Wikipedia article for J Street shows that many of the staff and advisors there have their own pages, so unless we want to start hunting down every single other blogger who may not be notable enough, I'm in no rush to delete. Queerwiki (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

---

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep I'm not going to pretend that it's a quality article, but I do thinks it meet the bare minimum for notability. Surly such a prolific writer must attain notability. Magister Scienta^talk 23:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. The two keeps here don't carry much weight: one says, basically, that we should trust in Google hits, and the other that someone who has published a bunch of articles is automatically notable. That is of course not the case. A complete absence of GNews hits is indication enough that this is not a notable person by our standards. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Comment I relisted the discussion once more, which is not generally done. As it stands, there is no consensus to delete the article, and keep voters are arguing it should be kept regardless of the notability guideline. That's fine in itself (and really, it is, guidelines reflect practice, not the other way around, and practice can change), but would warrant more discussion, as the GNG has stood to much discussion and usually come out on top. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - On the one hand, Mr. Troster seems to be a moderately published author, but I don't think he clearly clears the bar. His work seems to fall into a sort of nether-world where the articles are neither academic enough nor widely read enough to quite merit notability. If anything, he seems to be on par with an occasional non-syndicated columnist in a local newspaper, and my read of the guidelines is that such alone does not qualify one as being notable.Tyrenon (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I am not seeing "…significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bio] Bus stop (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Using Larry to search on seems o produce more in Gnews than Lawrence (Msrasnw (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC))

:::({{Find sources|Larry Troster}})

• Comment: Thank you Msrasnw for this, but 'more' is certainly a relative term, since only 4 items show up, of which, maybe 2 or 3 would be valid (and those are more than 12 years old). anyway, i think we are still not seeing "significant coverage" in RS. Soosim (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

:: True - but above it was suggested there were no links which seems missleading. Also from these links we find a link to the Iranian Conference http://www.iisd.ca/sd/sdter/ where he seems to be presented as notable and in notable company and the claim in the PCN&R "featuring Rabbi Larry Troster, internationally known authority on Jewish and interfaith perspectives on ecological and environmental issues." Anyway best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC))

: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.