Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Berman (Strategist & Author)

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. Sandstein 17:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Berman (Strategist & Author)

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

Blatantly promotional biography. Lacks the references and sources to meet the notability requirements of WP:AUTHOR. Kelly ^hi! 07:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been edited to meet notability requirements of WP:AUTHOR. Joshmplant (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither meets WP:AUTHOR nor WP:BASIC. --Edcolins (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edited version cite with enough depth to meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:BASIC. Joshmplant (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps explain why you think that he meets WP:AUTHOR? There are four criteria, and in my opinion, none of them is met here. For example, he does not seem to be "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". Although he appears to be a member of the Intellectual Property Hall of Fame Academy, he is not an inductee into the so-called IP Hall of Fame as far as I can see. --Edcolins (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He meets critera 1 because he and his books have been cited many times in important publications. Many attorneys and other people within the IP field quote him, use his books as references, and write reviews praising his books. He meets criteria 2 through his career and the actual content of his books, which explain how and why companies should leverage their IP assets. He meets 3 because he has five well-regarded books on IP. Point 4 can only be shown through the people who have reviewed his books and the publications that quote and review his books. But at the very least, he meets the WP:BASIC requirements, if it is an absolute requirement that Authors meet every point on WP:AUTHOR. I have added citations where Berman has been quoted, where he has written, and where his books have been quoted and reviewed. He is a known figure in the IP world and has contributed a significant body of work to the field. I did not include multipal articles or reviews from the same publications, but I can. HIs website is full of links. Also, WIPO Magazine doesn't publish anyone, they do require that the authors of its articles have some level of respectability and notability. I truly to believe I have listed many qualifying sources. Joshmplant (talk)

I am afraid you haven't convinced me. In my opinion, he does not meet any of the four WP:AUTHOR criteria. As to WP:BASIC, he does not seem to "have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Anyway, I leave it to others to weigh in, one way or another. --Edcolins (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two more books that cite Berman as an expert and added a US News and World Report article that quotes him as an industry expert. He doesn't have seminal theories like Einstein, but he is well regarded in the IP field. I have proven that he is cited as an expert in many high-level and reliable publications and books. I hope the other editors will ready my citations and agree that Berman's page is at least means WP:BASIC and is worthy of not being deleted. Joshmplant (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and for adding further references. The three references you added[1] do not appear to discuss the subject (i.e., Mr Berman) in detail. I would say that they constitute -or at least are very close to be- "mentions in passing". --Edcolins (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot control what GoogleBooks scans, I only had access to the reference pages of the books, or one page where he was quoted. It is hard to determine the length of the mention in this context. The fact he is in these books, quotes in Forbes, WIPO, has 5 books in circulation should be enough to be granted the right to keep the page, even under WP:BASIC only. I have seen pages with far less information and far fewer citations and way fewer sources. Joshmplant (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with both Edcolins and the nominator - it's promotional material and and as an author, he doesn't at all meet WP:AUTHOR. He's mentioned in passing in a few articles, but not the focus of any. Not close, in my opinion. Rockypedia (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional is not my intention, but I have added as many sources as I can, even removing some because they were marked as excessive. He is quoted as an expert in the field in top-level publications and has 5 published books from a top publishing house (John Wiley & Sons), I am not sure what else I can do. Any guidance is greatly appriciated. Joshmplant (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2016 (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.