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 no consensus‎. No consensus for a particular outcome has transpired at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Louis Boetzel[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. i can´t find substantive coverage in independent sources. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR. Significant coverage in Google Books (including its newspaper archive eg [1] etc), Google Scholar, the Internet Archive, in newspapers such as the New York Times, and elsewhere. Eric Boetzel was joint author of The Light in the Sky (1929) [2], which has multiple periodical book reviews in The New York Evening Post (Edwin Seaver, 15 June 1929, p 6m), The New York Herald Tribune (Books, 30 June 1929, p 14), The New York Times (9 June 1929, p 9), New York Times Book Review ("Fantastic Romance", 9 June 1929, p 9) [3], The Ohio State Engineer [4] [5], Amazing Stories [6], London Review of Books [7], Futures Past [8], Music Lovers' Phonograph Monthly Review [9], Music Trade Indicator [10], Book Review Digest [11], and elsewhere [12], and is the subject of articles in numerous annotated bibliographies. Reprinted by Arno Press in 1978 (which implies it is enduringly popular). First novel with a theme song according to Music Trade Indicator (which I assume refers to the vinyl music record that was released to accompany the book). James500 (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All references mentioned above are about the book The Light in the Sky and most are not in-depth, independent reviews. There is no substantive coverage about the person, the co-author Mr. Boetzel. All biographical facts in the article are based on one primary source and one passing mention in the New York Times article. I stick to my opinion that the subject does not pass Wikipedia:Notability nor Wikipedia:Author. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He very clearly does pass AUTHOR. It is no good claiming that the coverage is of the book, because the whole point of AUTHOR is that authors are notable for their books, and that coverage of the book is coverage of the author. As far as I can see, the sources are in-depth independent reviews. "Substantive coverage about the person" is not required by criteria 3 or 4 of AUTHOR, however some of the reviews do contain substantive coverage of aspects of Boetzel's biography other than the book (and notice that the book is part of his biography and not something separate). The source of the "biographical facts in the article" is irrelevant, because notability does not have anything to do with article content: WP:CONTN. The bottom line is that Boetzel has created and played a major role in creating a significant and well-known work, which has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles and reviews; and his work has won significant critical attention. On the face if it, he very clearly satisfies WP:AUTHOR. And there is coverage of other aspects of his biography in various sources. We have far more coverage, and we know far more, (not all of which is in the article or this discussion yet), about the "non-literary" aspects of Boetzel's life than we do about Homer's. If we were to delete Boetzel's article on that technicality, we would have to delete Homer next, because we know nothing about Homer apart from the contents of two books. James500 (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see any coverage of this person in the LOC newspaper database, Gnews, Scholar or Jstor. Was a bit skeptical about author notability; the only one I can open is the London Review of Books, it's barely a paragraph long. The rest are geo-blocked from my location; I might attempt some *ahem* high-seas, arrrrrr, methods later at home, see if I can get around that limitation. !delete for now. Oaktree b (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your inability to read printed sources for free online is not a grounds for deletion. Neither is claiming that you are unable to read them, when you are in fact perfectly able to read them in snippet view in Google Books, or (in some cases, such as Amazing Stories [13] and the Music Lovers' Phonograph Monthly Review [14]) in full page preview in the Internet Archive, or from the University archive linked to above. Neither is selectively cherrypicking the databases that contain the least coverage, when I specifically said Google Books and the Internet Archive. Neither is claiming that the Chronicling America database has no coverage when in fact it clearly does have coverage, including numerous entire newspaper articles about Boetzel [15] [16] [17] [18] etc. Especially when they come up immediately on a search for "Boetzel" in New York [19] or Eric Boetzel generally. Neither is claiming that Chronicling America has complete coverage of the relevant newspaper book reviews from 1929, when it obviously does not have those newspapers (New York Times, Evening Post and Herald Tribune) for that year (unless there is something seriously wrong with its OCR). Especially when the Book Review Digest, which you can read in Google Books, clearly confirms that the three newspaper reviews exist, and even tells you how many words long they are. James500 (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed I said I would review them from my personal computer at home, which I'm about to do now. Please stop with the personal attacks and read carefully; I have to use pirated sources to read many of them, which I'd not encourage others to do. I have ways to bypass copyright locks on many of these sources, but these are not legal. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Oaktree b: First, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not accusing you of anything. Secondly, I would be very grateful (and I mean that sincerely) if you would tell me if you can you read this snippet, this snippet and this snippet? On the face of it, this technique is perfectly legal because Google won the court case over snippet view. Between them, those three snippets should display the whole of the article in the Book Review Digest. James500 (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to react with hostility to editors who hold a different point of view than your own. You are apparently willing to go to great lengths to find sources (as I've seen in other AFDs) but we rely on a volunteer crew here and we are especially in need of thoughtful participants in AFDs as we are getting fewer and fewer editors willing to take time to do the research. I'm grateful for our regular participants like Oaktree b whose search for sources differed from your own. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liz: I did not express any hostility towards anyone or anything. I did not comment on anyone's point of view. I commented on the existence of sources, whether it was possible to read those sources online, and the factual accuracy of statements. I am sorry if what I said was capable of being misunderstood. James500 (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first Ohio State Engineer link is the only one I can access, it's rather extensive. I can't open any of the other sources. The London Review of Books is a small paragraph, hardly extensive. I can't find enough sources to meet author notability. I can't find mention of his activities as a lawyer in a NY State newspaper archive [20], so still no help there. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Looks like No consensus right now. Hoping for some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think. To the sources about the novel, I can add The Brooklyn Daily Eagle ([21]), Akron Beacon ([22]) - lots more like this on newspapers.com, so many that I stopped opening anything from 1929 (sorry @ anyone who can't load these proxy links, I don't know of any other way to share these). His divorce was messy enough to make it to the papers ("Writer's Wife Sues to Make Long Story Short" [23], [24]). Actually, someone else's divorcee was messy enough that he made it to the papers for that, too ([25]). He apparently went to jail for several months for mail fraud ([26]), and was disbarred for it ([27]). He appears to have enjoyed writing indignant letters to the editor in his old age. Also, he wrote this bizarre one to the Korean ambassador ([28]). (?!?!) This is all to say, our article is underselling how weird this guy's life was, and he definitely meets WP:GNG. -- asilvering (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2024 (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.