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. m.o.p 04:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Dennis Loo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Appears to be about a non-notable professor and author. Seems to fail WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF in that he hasn't won any major awards, his books aren't particularly notable, and is only an associate professor. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Strong keep even a student can be entried in Wikipedia if he has enough third-party references mentioning and/or discussing his works. Google books references enough of Loo's works to me, not to mention the web at large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandPhilliesFan (talk • contribs) 10:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But would you consider those to be links that wikipedia considers reliable? Most of the ones I saw were blog entries and promotional pieces. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: Dennis Loo has won Project Censored’s National First Place Award for “No Paper Trail Left Behind: the Theft of the 2004 Presidential Election,” The Nation Magazine’s “Most Valuable Campaign” Award for the “wear orange” against torture campaign, and the Alfred R. Lindesmith Award from the Society for the Study of Social Problems and he’s a Full Professor, not an Associate. His work has been headlined at Al-Jazzera, Middle East Online, and Consortium News and he’s a Steering Committee Member of the World Can’t Wait and a co-author of the Crimes Are Crimes No Matter Who Does Them Statement that ran in the New York Review of Books, The Nation and The New York Times. Articles of his have gone viral such as “DoD Training Manual: Protest is ‘Low-Level Terrorism.’” He also began appearing in Who’s Who in 2010. KMulleavy (talk) 2:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)— KMulleavy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Can you find one of those and link to it please. Dream Focus 01:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I searched for the guy and narrowed it down to include one of his two books. "Dennis Loo" "Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney" OR "Globalization and the Demolition of Society" [1] He gets some coverage for his work. Dream Focus 01:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - promotion of a not independently notable person. Off2riorob (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and pretty obvious promotion of the author and his latest book. On KMulleavy's comments, a response: those aren't major awards (per WP:PROF). Reading our own WP page for Project Censored, it seems even the progressive community have started to disown them, and I can't even find a website listing winners of the Alfred R. Lindesmith Award. Being a full Professor (which he is, according to the faculty listings page where he teaches - thank you for the correction) doesn't automatically grant WP:PROF status. "Who's Who" is of course a joke. I'm not even sure what "his articles have gone viral" is supposed to mean and how one can really prove that in an AfD discussion. As far as his books: one is published by a vanity press which has published only that book, the other is an independent publisher with some credentials but I don't see any cites that this book is particularly noteworthy (not like, say, Bugliosi's book on a similar subject which received much more notable attention.) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I searched for that award and did find a listing, but was unable to locate any awards for the study of social problems. What I did find focused on scholastics and did not include Loo's name in any of the previous winners. [2] Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
    • A search under the terms "Alfred R. Lindesmith Award" and "Dennis Loo" only brought up articles posted by Loo. I'm not sure if this is the exact Society for the Study of Social Problems that Loo refers to, but they don't appear to give out Lindesmith awards and I can't see anything on their website to where he has won one of the awards[3]. I believe that only the Drug Policy Alliance gives these out. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
      • I did a little searching prompted by Tokyogirl79's question, and she's right. I cannot find any evidence of that award by "The Nation" magazine, as all links are to pages by or about Dennis Loo - "The Nation" website lists their award categories and there is no "Most Valuable Campaign" award. Additionally, "Crimes are Crimes..." is just an advertisement that appeared, and I fail to see how someone can be notable because an ad they were involved with appeared someplace notable; it's not like the NYTimes invited Loo to write for them. Something stinks - or more likely just WP:PUFF in action. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet wikipedia standards for notability. Blueyez941 (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Not very long, not up to WP:GNG, contains only a few reliable sources, do not nessisarily agree with the subjects book, but respect his opinion. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The above vote previously read "Keep per Reliable Sources." until the user "[withdrew] nomination [sic]". What reliable sources? Goodvac (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Dennis Loo fails WP:BIO. Analyzing each source through the lens of the WP:GNG:
  • "Higher Ed in Peril" is a document written by Dennis Loo inter alios. This source is not independent of the subject.
  • "Dennis Loo's Blog" is, of course, Loo's blog. Sources that establish notability can neither be blogs nor articles written by the subject.
  • "Administrative Directory" is a directory of faculty at Cal Poly. Directories constitute passing mentions and do not establish notability.
  • "Impeach the President! » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names" is an unreliable article written by Gary Leupp on CounterPunch. CounterPunch allows user submissions. There is no indication that Leupp is actually an author of CounterPunch and not someone who sent in a submission.
  • "Interview With Dennis Loo, Co-Editor of 'Impeach the President, the Case Against Bush and Cheney'" is an interview of Loo conducted by non-notable David Swanson and placed on his blog. This source is tantamount to a blog post I make after interviewing someone. Articles published by non-notable people in reliable sources do not establish notability.
  • A Google News archive search for "Dennis Loo" -"by Dennis Loo" -"by Dr. Dennis Loo" yields no reliable sources beyond passing mentions.

In sum, there are no significant, independent reliable sources covering Dennis Loo. Goodvac (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete This person does not fit the standards set by Wikipedia for notability. Primus128 (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• - Strong Keep(user has vote commented twice, so I am striking this one - Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)} - Larkmead Press is a small new press: "Larkmead Press features fiercely independent voices in fiction and nonfiction. We are committed to bringing challenging analyses, evocative prose and poetry, and engaging literature to wider audiences." Furthermore, according to Larkmead Press' homepage, they have two or three titles in the works for the future. See: http://larkmeadpress.net/[reply]

This refutes the claim that Larkmead Pres is a "vanity press."

• Seven Stories Press is a reputable NYC publisher that has published well-known public figures, including but not limited to, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and Kurt Vonnegut. Chomsky, Zinn and Vonnegut's works published by Seven Stories Press have had wide appeal beyond academic circles among the public. Furthermore, Chomsky, for instance, is "the most cited living person, being a strong reference point in the sciences. "Chomsky is one of the century's most important figures, and has been described as one who will be for future generations what Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Mozart, or Picasso have been for ours." See: Barsky, Robert F. Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent. The MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1997.

This refutes the claim that Seven Stories Press is "an independent publisher with some credentials."

• Project Censored is a respected although controversial among some sectors organization. Project Censored has been exposing key stories that the US media and government have outright censored and/or in part concealed. PC has played a pivotal role in raising public understanding and awareness; the standard for what PC publishes are of the highest intellectual rigor. If you have not read a PC publication, I encourage you to do so and see for yourself. Loo has both won a First Place Award from Project Censored and wrote the Introduction to Censored 2008 (Loo, Dennis, 2007. “Introduction,” Pp. 29-34 in Phillips, Peter and Project Censored, Censored 2008, NY: Seven Stories Press). The honor of being asked to write the Introduction to Censored’s annual volume has been bestowed on the likes of Norman Solomon, Michael Critchton, Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, Gary Webb, Robert W. McChesney, Amy Goodman and Greg Palast – all of whom have a Wiki bio.

This refutes the claim that the awards PC grants are a "joke."

• Loo's new book, Globalization and the Demolition of Society, has also been selected by Red Room - a website for authors and readers that features people like Maya Angelou and Salman Rushdie and that restricts its author membership to writers of books that have been published by recognized publishing houses or to journalists who have a recognized body of work or in rare instances, self-published authors whose books have been substantial successes - to be one of three prize books for a Red Room Civil Disobedience contest. The other prize books besides Loo’s Globalization and the Demolition of Society to be awarded to the contest winners are Naomi Wolf’s Give Me Liberty and Gina Misiroglu's three-volume American Countercultures: An Encyclopedia of Nonconformists, Alternative Lifestyles, and Radical Ideas in U.S. History. See: http://redroom.com/member/red-room-well-red/blog/blog-topic-civil-disobedience KMulleavy (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — KMulleavy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment (1) Quoting Larkmead Press' website means nothing, right now they only have one book. (2) Other authors that Seven Stories Press publishes is not relevant because notability is not inherited. (3) That's all well and nice about how Project Censored is publishing censored/concealed/whatever (including 9-11 Truthers apparently), but once you get into the latter category promoting 9-11 conspiracy theories, guess what, you are a joke. And notability still isn't inherited. (4) Red Room's own site says they are place for authors to promote their books, and by "prize book", they mean bloggers could win a copy in a contest. Wow. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Please refrain from voting twice in the same AfD process. Firstly, these things aren't decided on a vote and secondly voting twice (vote stacking) does not actually give you two votes and generally never reflects well on the person doing such a thing. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• I struck the double vote comment. It sometimes happens and is usually a good faith mistake. Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Vernon claims that Larkmead Press is a "vanity press." I cited Larkmead Press' page as evidence that it is NOT a "vanity press," but in fact, a small, new press. This is what we do on Wikipedia--we cite evidence to prove our claims. Vernon's opinion of Larkmead Press isn't what holds; Vernon can call it what he wants but there is evidence that shows that his opinion doesn't match up with reality. I have used the available sources to disprove his point. New presses typically start off publishing one book--Larkmead Press currently has other books in the works, as I previously evidenced. Are Vernon and others aware of how the publishing world works?
• Vernon also claims that Seven Stories Press is "an independent publisher with some credentials." I refuted this claim as well by establishing that his characterization of Seven Stories Press was also, quite simply, nothing more than his subjective opinion. There are in fact several other notable figures, including Loo, who have had their work published by Seven Stories Press and they all have Wiki entries. The articles Project Censored publishes explain reality--not hunches, not guess estimations of what happened--they get at the truth. Each of their articles are based on factual evidence that has been proven; their articles do withstand the test of criticism and time. Anyone can disagree with what they publish and Vernon can attempt refute them all he wants, but it is misleading and inaccurate to state "publishing censored/concealed/whatever (including 9-11 Truthers apparently), but once you get into the latter category promoting 9-11 conspiracy theories, guess what, you are a joke." There is nothing "conspiracy" related about Project Censored. Furthermore, Vernon's lack of intellectual rigor is astonishing when he tries to debunk my claims with words like "whatever" and baseless attacks such as "you are a joke." If Vernon and others on here are going to personally attack people who provide them with alternative evidence refuting their arguments, they lack the objectivity necessary to truly review this Wikipedia entry.
• Vernon’s claim that notability isn’t “inherited” is not germane because the point that was made that Vernon’s defending is the idea that Seven Stories Press (SSP) is not that notable. When I showed exactly how notable they are, that goes to the issue of why they would publish Loo’s first book. It shows that the criteria they use to decide to publish Loo’s FIRST BOOK is also the SAME high standards’ criteria that they use to publish best selling authors like Kurt Vonnegut, Chomsky and Howard Zinn and NOT to publish others who would like to be published by SSP because of their prestige. The fact that Loo was able to get his very first book published by SSP says something about not only the quality of that book, but the quality of his work in general. This point also applies to your nonsense argument about the non-heritability of who is asked to write the Introduction to Project Censored’s annual volume. The list of who has done so reads like a Who’s Who including Michael Critchton et al and guess what, Loo is in that group. Why is that, because PC isn’t using the same criteria of notability to decide who they’re going to ask to write their introduction? It means that they, like SSP, are using the same high standards to decide who they will have do their introduction and that the same people besides Loo who has done an Introduction for PC who all have Wiki bios and are seen as in the same general importance, which includes Loo.
• By prize book, Red Room means that Globalization and the Demolition of Society is a book that has been selected by the authors of Red Room as a book warranting serious discussion and debate among Red Room contributors and reviewers. Yes, Red Room exists to help authors promote their books. But look at who is on that website – Salman Rushdie, Maya Angelou, et. - and look at their criteria for admission to premium book author membership. You have to be a serious book author to get admitted to that status. The fact that they would choose Loo’s new book as one of three to be singled out for this contest as the prize indicates that this book author’s site that includes the most famous authors on the planet means that they don’t think Loo’s new book is a vanity press product but a serious and important piece of scholarship worthy of being offered as a prize. KMulleavy (talk) 8:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC) — KMulleavy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Notability is not inherited. Please understand that. Just because a site or publisher carries authors Wikipedia states is notable does not automatically make Loo notable. Please check WP:Author and WP:NOTINHERITED. I also checked out Red Room and saw that it is a site where people pay to get their books advertised. The mentions to Loo on the site are all press releases or personal blog posts, meaning that they're pieces that Loo or one of his agents paid to get placed on the site. Furthermore, being published at all doesn't guarantee notability either. Loo could have had every single one of his books published through Harper Collins, one of the top publishers in the field, yet that still wouldn't give him automatic notability. Whether the publisher is large, small, vanity, or self created does not matter. Being published does not give you automatic notability regardless of whether or not the publisher is highly notable or not. It doesn't matter what their "standards" are, that still doesn't mean that Loo is notable. I have to repeat myself in saying that I have been unable to find anything that Wikipedia would consider a reliable source. Everything that I've found would be considered an unreliable source, being either promotional or being on a site where anyone can submit anything to get placed on the site. They're all user generated pieces, which rarely counts as a reliable source. See WP:RELIABLESOURCES. He fails notability guidelines, plain and simple. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
    • Additional: I also want to note that the sole requirement of premium membership on Red Room seems to be a $250 price tag and the free membership is pretty easily obtained. Even if the site was ultra exclusive (which it's not), belonging to an exclusive club still doesn't automatically give you notability. It's not inherited, meaning that just because he has somewhat of a link to sites featuring notable people doesn't bestow notability on him. It doesn't work that way. The same thing applies to any group that Loo belongs to. It doesn't matter if he contributed to World Can't Wait or any number of wikipedia-worthy groups. His allying himself with the groups does not bestow notability on him. There is nothing that names him as a particularly noteworthy member of these groups or movements other than Loo's own blogs and articles. I also feel like you are venturing into WP:OWN territory and I can't help but feel that there might be a conflict of interest (WP:COI) here as well. I'm not trying to attack you by stating these, just voicing a concern that I've had for a while now. If you are someone associated with Loo (friend, coworker, family member, representative, agent, or Loo himself), it's best to admit that you are involved with him because if it's found out otherwise it could undermine any arguments you make. (See Wikipedia:COI#Editors_who_may_have_a_conflict_of_interest for information about that.) Being involved doesn't automatically mean that you can't contribute anything about him to wikipedia but it does mean that you have to be extra careful when doing so as well as when you are defending such contributions. If you're just passionate about his work then that's great, just be careful that you aren't over inflating things in order to keep the article on here. Stuff like that is pretty easy to see through and the closing admins are admins for a reason. Again, not trying to be nasty. I'm just giving you a heads up. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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.