Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evgeny Morozov

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Kevin (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evgeny Morozov

edit
Evgeny Morozov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability. References include one primary source and a source, which is connected to the subject. Searching for anything more substantial was unsuccessful. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 17:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep published in New York Times [1] identified as " a fellow at The Open Society Institute in New York and a member of its Information Program's board." Referred to in Lede [2] "Meanwhile, on Foreign Policy’s “net.effect” blog, Evgeny Morozov unloads on Twitter in a post headlined “Swine flu: Twitter’s power to misinform.” " (This is RS as start of blog thread, not a response). And more cites on the NYT ad nauseam [3] [4] [5] [6] How much more substantial do we need? internet&st=cse&scp=15 " Evgeny Morozov, a specialist in technology and politics at the Open Society Institute in New York, a group that works with democratic movements worldwide and has been active in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, said Facebook and Twitter had apparently played a major role in the protests. " Leaving us with a person quoted multiple times in the NYT, opinion columnist multiple times in the NYT, and cited as an expert by the NYT. Sufficient notability, to be sure. Collect (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your "ad nauseam" cites are all primary sources and as such are unacceptable to establish notability. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 21:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Primary sources" are things like court documents and the like. The New York Times is considered a "reliable source" and when articles it publishes refer to a person as well-known in a field, it is presumed to be proper use of a "secondary source" (a newspaper). WP:RS "In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used. " The NYT is considered such a source. WP:OR "Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." The New York Times does not fit in that category as used on WP. Collect (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:BIO. Being published in the New York Times is not notable by itself. If the New York Times had a few articles about Morozov, that's another story. At best, there is a passing and trivial mentioning of him. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 23:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware of policy. One -- the NYT is not a "primary source" as one claimed above. Second, they specifically cite him as an expert in his field, and not just a "trivial mention." Third, they have him write opinion columns (not blog entries) which make him published by the NYT. This, in fact, is considered sufficient notability for several NYT columnists. I happen to disagree with his backers and positions - but he sure meets notability criteria for WP. [7], that being a NYT columnist is "notable" per se. Collect (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Specialist" is not a synonym of "expert". There are a couple of sentences about him published by the NYT, but this meets none of the WP:CREATIVE. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 00:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parsing "specialist" "fellow" and "expert" is not within reasonable purview. To most people, a "specialist" in a technical topic, writing on that topic for the New York Times, is expert as far as the NYT is concerned. All "specialist" implies is that his expertise is in a specialty of some sort. Collect (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought a specialist is someone who specializes in something. As opposed to a generalist and regardless of his expertise. A dictionary agreed. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 00:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I found one which defined "expert" as "specialist." [8] "a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority: a language expert." Collect (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the fact that there is little biographical info out there on him - a widely-published author, as we have determined, was my impetus to start this article, in the hope that information could be collected about him here. But since this deletion nomination has come up, I've dug around and found at least one "about" link that may be instructive: [9]. Ironically he just published a study on "what makes Wikipedia work," in Boston Review. Cjs2111 (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Boston Review article is definitely not a study, more like a well-informed rant. :) prashanthns (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of these is about Morozov. Nor is he referred to as an expert by any organization to which he is not connected. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 20:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


So the NYT calling him an expert is not valid then? Collect (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He works for them, so this assessment is not exactly neutral. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 20:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thus no employee of the NYT can be notable? Interesting. Especially since he is not an employee of the NYT. Collect (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They publish his articles for free? Note how all the other publications refer to him simply as a "Fellow at Georgetown University's E.A. Walsh School of Foreign Service", "blogger at Foreign Policy", etc. You'd think that if he were an expert indeed, that would be recognized more universally. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you usually refer to yourself in the third person? :-) Óðinn ☭☆ talk 21:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being paid for a column does not make one an employee of a publication. Honest! Collect (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the TED Talks page: "Evgeny Morozov is a journalist, author and an expert on political and social aspects of the Internet." [10] This is not an organization he is "affiliated" with, they only feature him. As an expert. From OpenDemocracy.net: "Evgeny Morozov is a technology and new-media expert" [11]. From WMD Insights: "Belarusian digital activism expert" [12]. ON THE BBC: "International cyberspace expert from Belorussia" [13]. How many more instances of "he's an expert" do we need? Cjs2111 (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • 'Keep I do not understand Odinn's reasoning. He is widely quoted on notable subjects, writes for notable publications and is employed at a notable institution. What more do you want? Also, it will look vindictive if his entry is deleted as soon as he criticises Wikipedia in public. I should declare an interest here: he writes for The Economist, as do I. Edwardlucas (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Clearly regarded by major reliable news media as subject matter expert, with opinions/quotations often appearing in them. The work that makes him notable is well-documented and sufficient to write a decent article from (not that there's anything wrong with the existing one other than perhaps its brevity); not every bio needs discussion of childhood pets, romantic connections, and embarassing public displays. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Notable - I found a few third party sources just looking though google. — Oli OR Pyfan! 10:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be a major public intellectual, passes WP:PROF criterion 7. RayTalk 16:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep. I think after 9 days, the discussion is ripe to be closed a keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I have been following the state of the article during the AFD in hope of seeing extra sourcing from which we could assert notability, I noticed this slight expansion since the nomination: [14]. While some above have claimed to find additional sources (which above they have not identified), a close look at what has been changed reveals that none of the sources presented as references in the article to date are independent of Evgeny Morozov (as sources that feature a certain writer are not considered independent third parties for notability purposes). Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:15, 22 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evgeny_Morozov&oldid=1137836351"