Talk:Jay Rosen

message: My understanding of WP:Bio-notability is that "academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists" - i.e., the category of Mr. Rosen - meets standards of notability only if they have either (a) been the subject of significant secondary source research, (b) have made a *significant* and influential contribution to their field or (c) have originated a significant new concept.  Mr. Rosen fails all these standards.  The very fact that his bio here is padded with such trivia as the color of his Mac book underscores, I think, his essential nonentity.  In addition, WP:NOTABILITY(academics) specifies that a proposed article subject must be significant, well-known, or uniquely honored by his or her peers.  Mr. Rosen isn't.  He's like about 10,000 other professors.  Why waste the bandwidth on this one and not the 10,000 others?  71.9.8.150 (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He's ridiculously popular AND has made significant contributions in the world of journalistic integrity. I contest this prod. --Liface (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Popularity on campus is not a measure of notability, per the policies cited above.  As for "significant" contributions, a brief search of the citation index doesn't support such a claim, and other than primary sources (ie, publications BY Mr. Rosen, rather than ABOUT him) I'm unable to find any noteworthy or unique contribution.  The world is full of decent, hardworking professors and professionals in many fields.  That doesn't make them notable. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have begun the (ridiculously and needlessly complex) deletion discussion process, but someone with an account will have to fire the first rock.  For the moment, I would appreciate the inclusion of my comments here, but you can achieve the same result with any Google search, which will reveal that Mr. Rosen's presence in his field is limited almost exclusively to his self-publications, and that he is certainly no more "notable" than any of literally thousands of other professors across the nation, to say nothing of internationally.  71.9.8.150 (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion 

message: This page seems to do an awful lot of self-promotion of the subject and quoting "notable" things they have said where the definition of "notable" seems to be used pretty loosely.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.172.66 (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self Promotion 

message: hello i deleted the "notable thinkpress articles by jay rosen" section because it's a blatant advertisement for rosen's site.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.100.255 (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, and I've done so again, and tried to make a few other improvements.  There's nothing wrong with us noting signficant writings in a biography, but significance should be established, as we do here, by signficant coverage in reliable sources independent from the subject. We don't just get to say "this post is signficant", we need some external evidence for that assertion.  --joe deckertalk 03:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed advertisments 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jay Rosen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070509025843/http://journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/rosen.html to http://journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/rosen.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified