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. The arguments to keep this for the most part are arguments from authority, and do not provide concrete evidence that the subject meets WP:PROF, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG, or some other criterion of notability. The arguments to delete are far stronger; Mike Christie's argument, in particular, is persuasive. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Norwood[edit]

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)).

Rick Norwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Effectively an unsourced BLP. Subject fails WP:NACADEMIC for mathematical contributions (no more than a two dozen or so citations on any of his 24 papers), WP:GNG, and his editorship work in comics seems to fail WP:AUTHOR. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say a word or two in defense of the article about my work. The criteria in WP:NACADEMIC sets the bar quite high, and reads more like the criteria for, say, Encyclopedia Britannica than for Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a reputation for accuracy equal to that of the Britannica, but Wikipedia is clearly more inclusive, since the English Wikipedia alone contains more than one hundred times as many articles as the last print Britannica and more than forty times as many articles as the current on-line Britannica. If the WP:NACADEMIC standards were applied generally, I suspect a very large number of Wikipedia articles would be deleted. In mathematics, my 24 publications, some with two dozen citations, is not an inconsiderable number. In particular, I am one of the leading researchers in the area of knots on the double torus.

My claim for notability in my other area of interest, comic strips, is even stronger. I am one of the world's leading experts on newspaper comic strips, have written extensively on the subject, and have published approximately four hundred magazines reprinting classic comic strips, as well as editing books for other publishers.

I agree that as a writer of fiction my work (so far) is minor, and is only included along with other biographical information. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All Wikipedia articles are judged on the criteria of notability which have been established by consensus. This includes WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:AUTHOR. If there are reliable sources that demonstrating that the subject of any article passes some criteria, then the article is usually adjudged to have sufficient notability to merit an article. As it stands now, there is no such evidence for the subject of this article for work in mathematics (by WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:NACADEMIC) nor work in comics (by WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:AUTHOR).

Note that of the 24 papers: none are indexed on Web of Knowledge nor Scopus (typically used citation metrics); 9 are indexed on MathSciNet (one with 8 citations, two with 6 citations, and three with 1 citation); and several are on Google Scholar (one with 23 citations, one with 15 citations, one with 5 citations, and the rest with 3 or fewer citations). I don't think that this typically qualifies as highly cited nor significant per WP:NACADEMIC. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge content of Manuscript Press into this article. The subject's unusual combination of scholarship in mathematics and in the subset of the popular culture field which is comics history (where he is regarded as a prominent figure) makes him more notable than usual. (Full disclosure: I am casually acquainted with subject through science fiction fandom.) This is an example of the situation where an article is tagged for deletion, when what it needs is improved citations. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there's no evidence that his scholarship in mathematics meets WP:NACADEMIC, that his publishing work meets WP:AUTHOR, or that either meet WP:GNG. There needs to be evidence that he really is regarded as a prominent figure from multiple independent reliable secondary sources; I see zero such evidence presented here and I have not seen any such evidence elsewhere. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There needs to be evidence that he really is regarded as a prominent figure from multiple independent reliable secondary sources; I see zero such evidence presented here..." I've added several independent reliable secondary sources, including two books and two magazines. I'll try to add more. I should have worked harder to save reviews of my work. But if I were not regarded as a prominent figure in the field of comic strips, would I have been hired by the top publishers in that field to edit books (Fantagraphics) and to write introductions for books (Titan Books)? Would my regular columns have been published in The Comics Buyer's Guide and in The Menomonee Falls Gazette? This may not be sufficient evidence to convince MarkH21, but it is certainly not "zero" evidence. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is that WP:GNG stipulates that there needs to be significant coverage of the subject (so Rick Norwood, not Manuscript Press or Comics Revue) from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is what it literally says. Examples that would be included are newspaper articles (from a publisher you have not worked with) with a significant portion about you from a major news outlet, documentaries with a significant portion about you, etc. This would not include you having written columns for a newspaper, you having been hired by a publisher, or you having written an introduction for a book. That type of recognition would be something along the lines of point 7 of WP:NACADEMIC or point 3 of WP:NAUTHOR but there isn't a strong case for either of those here. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: subject has mentioned this AfD on his Facebook page, and some of his friends have spread the word. While Norwood himself is being straightforward and adult about it, some of his friends have resorted to vile and vituperative abuse of WP, suggestions of ways to "fool" us (all very childlike and sure to fail), etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't that a violation of the guidelines against canvassing? I have seen the post now, which also mentions a related AfD and another AfD on an article created by the subject, and it is an "off-wiki communication to notify editors" (per WP:STEALTH) and naturally calls for support towards "Keep" regardless of it being straightforward (can be construed as campaigning, but perhaps not a strong case here). — MarkH21 (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I asked for help in the form of citations of reliable sources which have reviewed or commented on my work. I appreciate MarkH21 informingd me that this is against Wikipedia policy. I've been editing Wikipedia for 14 years, and had not come across this rule before, but I apologize for breaking it, and will heed your advice in the future. Rick Norwood (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Lean toward Keep, and merge Manuscript Press. My google-fu is not the best, but I believe there is some evidence that he is the expert in certain aspects of comic history. How reliable that evidence is is a more complicated question. (As an aside, the article on me was kept because of WP:GNG, not any of the specialized notability guidelines.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems to meet the criteria for notability. A somewhat odd one, since he has a claim for notability in multiple areas areas, and it's not clear how an accumulation of notability in many small areas adds up, but I'd think that the minimum standards are met. Keep.Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • An "accumulation of notability" is not treated differently by the notability guidelines. For instance, if there is significant coverage of the subject (Rick Norwood, not Manuscript Press or Comics Revue) from one independent reliable source based on his work in mathematics, and one based on his work in publishing, then they would collectively satisfy WP:GNG. These guidelines still should be met though and none of them have been demonstrated to have been met yet. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- As a former journalist in the field of comic books, with 26 years experience in the business, i once had the job of reviewing every book Rick Norwood published. His reprint projects were both very popular and well known for their extremely high restoration quality. I believe that Rick Norwood's contributions to the historical preservation of the graphic art form influenced many others who came after him, and i think that his Manuscript Press was a model for how to keep old newsprint comics before the public. My reviews ran in "The Comics Buyer's Guide." Anyone with a run of that newspaper can look them up. catherine yronwode, not logged in. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 75.101.104.17 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

• Delete or WP:TNT I do not appreciate that nearly all of the article was self-written by Norwood (Wikipedia:Autobiography, WP:COI). If he's notable, it should not be written by the subject himself. He has a very nice resume as an editor and other roles, but none of the sources are independent, reliable, and substantive to verify notability and assert that his publications stand out from run-of-the-mill film/TV reviewing or specialized columns. Being quoted in another book neither contributes to notability nor does it need to be mentioned here. Now if other editors, preferably those who were not canvassed by the writer/subject and have a connection to him can show he passes WP:GNG, that's terrific but this should be deleted and allowed to be started over. Reywas92^Talk 07:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was going to suggest merging his article into Manuscript Press, but since that went the other way already, I'm good with keeping it as a sub of his article. The sources for MP are all independent and reliable, as a combined article it passes notability. Markvs88 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My name is Rick Marschall, and I am writing because I have heard about this situation. I have written 74 books, most of them on comics history; have been comics editor of three newspaper syndicates, of Marvel Comics; and was a writer for Disney comics. I have taught comics-related courses at four universities; consulted for the US Postal Service when they issued 20 stamps on Classic Comics; and have spoken overseas on comics for the US Information Service of the Department of State. HOWEVER I really don't want to talk about myself, except as it might give credence to my comments on Rick Norwood vis a vis Wikipedia. He has been involved in comics scholarship for decades; is universally respected; and he continues to be reliable resource for fans, students, and academics. I never have had a question about his thoroughness or his integrity. 2601:404:0:657D:3DDD:3B3D:9531:CB98 (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC) — 2601:404:0:657D:3DDD:3B3D:9531:CB98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete: per nom, subject clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. SSSB (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think Nom pegged it. Long list of books an publications, no indication that any of then are notable, despite valiant efforts by page's creator to source it. I can find no evidence that this individual meets WP:PROF, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've held back from any comments for more than a week, after someone extended the deadline for a week. And now, while during that week there were two recommendations to keep, at the last minute and within seven minutes of each other, two recommendations to delete. I have to ask, do you know anything at all about comic strips? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not 7 minutes apart, but 7 hours apart. It's also not unusual, as AfDs typically see increased activity before the deadline due to sortable lists and recent changes monitoring. It's much less suspicious than multiple keep votes from IPs and editors who have never previously voted on an AfD appearing after a Facebook post from the subject of the article. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Rick, I don't know much about comic books, but I'm willing to believe that you're well-known among aficionados and that most or all of what's been said in the "Keep" arguments is true. However, I don't see sources that demonstrate that the article on you passes GNG. If two or three reliable sources such as a history of comics or a newspaper article about comics scholarship devoted a page to you and your expertise, that would work, but I don't see that. Instead I see passing references in sources that are essentially about other things; you're not the primary topic under discussion in those sources. The list of publications isn't irrelevant, and could tip a marginal case, but I don't see the sources that would even make this marginal. Are there any reliable independent sources that discuss you -- as the primary topic of at least part of the source? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already listed in the references is the article about me in Fancyclopedia, the article about me in Bill Schelly's A Life in Comic Fandom, and the article about me in Toonopedia.Rick Norwood (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that Fancyclopedia counts as a reliable source; and I'm one of the most active sf editors on Wikipedia (and I have a background in fandom), so it's not from ignorance. Feel free to convince me. The Toonopedia article is not about you, though it mentions you several times in passing. I would need convincing that Toonopedia is reliable -- a quick look at the main page makes it appear to be a labour of love without editorial oversight. I don't have access to Schelly but if it's an article actually about you or if there is discussion of you, rather then just a mention of your positions as editor (or etc.) then it might count. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to be talking to someone who knows about sf fandom. Do you know Dick Eney's Fancyclopedia II, on which the modern Fancyclopedia is based? In any case, Fancyclopedia is probably as reliable a reference to sf fandom as there is. As for Toonopedia, it is true that it is a labor of love, but so is Wikipedia. Full disclosure, Don Markstein, who created Toonopedia, was my roommate for a while forty years ago. I've never met Bill Shelley as far as I can remember (though I may have, I've been to an awful lot of cons). The book includes a short article about me, not just a mention. You ask for a newspaper story about me. There have been several, and I think I saved the clippings, but I can't find them now. There were along the lines of "Mathematician publishes comic book". The print reviews I was able to find make it pretty clear that I am thought of as an expert in the field. "Rick Norwood is an old hand by now at the art of how to present reprints of classic comic strip. He's done super-fancy huge volumes, ongoing reprint anthology periodicals, and book-length collections." And I am well-known enough to have Fantagraphics, a major publisher in the world of comics, to invite me to edit nine books for them, and for Titan, another major publisher, to invite me to write introductions for their books. These were paying jobs. It is not clear to me what more is necessary. (I've also been editing Wikipedia almost every day for the past twelve years.) Rick Norwood (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note solely regarding Fancyclopedia: Fancyclopedia is self-described as being open to editing by anyone who wants to join. It is not a reliable source, it is user-generated content. Similarly see WP:SPS. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rick: I'm familiar with both Fancy II and its predecessor, the original Fancyclopedia, by Jack Speer; I cited both when I was doing research for the OED, but the OED's definition of a reliable source is not the same as ours. I did a search at newspapers.com for your name and "comics" and found a few hits, but my subscription has expired, so I'll leave a note at the renewal page asking any stalkers there to take a look and post here if anything looks like it would help the article pass the GNG. From what I can see, the problem is "significant": the GNG demands significant coverage in more than one source. Even if I were to take Schelly on faith as significant coverage (and you might want to transcribe what it says if you feel it will help your argument) the newspaper articles, from what I can see in the snippets visible without a subscription, are not substantial. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Using my Newspapers.com account I found the following mentions from the 'Rick Norwood comics' search: A quote, another quote, [inclusion in a list, and a small mention. Nothing significant as far as I can see there. Sam Walton (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per Nom, User:Mike Christie, and especially User:Reywas92, about subject self-writing the article (WP:COISELF) and canvassing, apologized for or not, specifically "stealth canvassing" that surely brought some vote stacking. Otr500 (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a way to explain in words why so many people who love comic strips love the books I've edited and published, and why people who do not know much about comic strips have trouble understand the impact these books made, especially Prince Valiant -- an American Epic. I'll only point out that everyone who wants this article kept knows comic strips and, as far as I can tell, everyone who wants the article deleted does not. Maybe pictures will help. Here are the images from a search on Prince Valaint, an American Epic, the name of the Prince Valiant books I published. The first three rows of images are images from my books. https://www.google.com/search?q=prince+valiant+an+american+epic&client=firefox-b-1-d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrnIaBlsjhAhXtlOAKHfTaA-84ChD8BQgQKAM&biw=1920&bih=944 At the time I published them, only one previous comic strip reprint was this large, a Tarzan reprint. Even today, there are only about a dozen books to ever reprint comic strips the size the appeared in newspapers in the 1930s and 1040s.Rick Norwood (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• without pretending to know anything about comics, I ran a proquest news archive search and found The People's Prince // You spared us no mercy when we pulled the plug onyour most valiant comic, so we're bringing it back Salamon, Jeff. Austin American Statesman; Austin, Tex. [Austin, Tex28 May 2000: K1. ] : ""It's mainly useful for getting people interested in history," says Rick Norwood, a professor of mathematics at East Tennessee State University. In addition to his expertise in algebraic topology, Norwood is a comic strip scholar who publishes "Prince Valiant: An American Epic," a painstaking series of oversize volumes that reprint Foster's work in fine detail. "But if you really want to know about history you should read Will and Ariel Durant. In some ways Prince Valiant is authentic, in some ways it isn't. It compresses events; you couldn't have all this history happen in one man's lifetime.". E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I've been trying to think rationally about this procedure, which is not easy. Nobody likes to be told that something they have worked very hard on, and are proud of, is not noteworthy. Every major reviewer of comic strips has reviewed the reprint books I published. Almost all of these reviews have praised the books. I've given examples in the footnotes to this article. You say someone else should have given these examples, but most of them appeared in print media years ago and nobody but me clipped and saved them. Even I could only find a few. A lot of people read the comics, but only a few follow magazines that review the comics, and in this small community, everybody knows everybody else. So, if you dismiss all the people who know me, you effectively ban all experts on the subject from the discussion. That sounds like a catch 22 to me. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom and Mike Christie arguments. Extra sources are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIFAukr (talk • contribs) 14:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I don't think the GNG is met. I didn't find evidence to show he's notable as a mathematician or professor. I don't think he's notable as an author although maybe a case could be made (sources are hard to judge about reliability and independence). For me, the possible arguments for keeping are countered by the facts of it being an autobiography and canvassing. The determining factor was that not meeting the GNG is more important than possibly meeting an SNG.Sandals1 (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2019 (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.