Talk:Cal Newport

Notability

Added notability tag on 2019-08-27. This article lacks external citations for notability; of the five references, three go to Newport's personal website and a fourth goes to his university faculty page. These come under the broad heading of self-promotion; if additional resources demonstrating notability can't be found, I will recommend this page for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.231.241.130 (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I recently found this page useful to learn a little more about this author after reading one of his books. The author does seem notable. His Deep Work book seems to be widely read (e.g. number of reviews on amazon is 93) and crops up quite a bit in the media (e.g. FT, Guardian, Forbes). I couldn't find any easy references to do a better job than the current ones (the articles tend to summarise the book as part of broader discussions on productivity) but the content on the page does seem true, is informative, and uncontroversial. Thus, I recommending keeping the page.Ballystrahan (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional sources:

• Cal Newport on Why We'll Look Back at Our Smartphones Like Cigarettes (Jan 2019 GQ interview)
• Review: Digital Minimalism: On Living Better with Less Technology by Cal Newport — log off and choose life (Jan 2019 Times UK review)
• Americans touch their smartphones 2,617 times a day—a ‘digital declutter’ could help you regain hours (Aug 2019 CNBC probably-promotional piece)
• Transition to a Digital Minimalism (LONG March 2020 interview on ABC; might satisfy WP:Interview's description of a notability-satisfying interview, but I haven't listened to it)

Jlevi (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Given that he meets the professor test and has books on bestseller lists I think he is clearly notable. Accordingly I have removed the notability tag.Tillander 05:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The eight references are not independent and do not demonstrate notability. References 1 & 3 concern promotion and sale of books authored by the subject. References 2, 4 & 5 are basic announcements made on university affiliated websites. References 6, 7 & 8 are websites run by and/ or potentially influenced by the subject themself. I have accordingly added back the notability tag.

Argument for deletion (w/ option to re-list provided further references): What wikipedia is not:

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, or a web directory."

1) Wikipedia is not a web directory: While it may be true that the subject is a professor of computer science, there is no value in documenting the basic career progression of every scientist, which is why it is not done in practice. There are many scientists whose research is far more notable than the subject's as measured by nearly any methodology, like h-index, about whom there are no wiki articles solely dedicated to such scientist(s). Accordingly, simple career related announcements on a university website do not, by virtue of their existence on such a website, mean that the information is notable and worthy of reduplication here.

2) Wikipedia not an advertising platform or vanity press: While the subject has basic credentials in the field of computer science, the books, blogs and other media the subject sells and promotes are outside of this field. In turn, the effect of the association of the subject with respected academic institutions implies that credence should be given to all their work, even work outside of their domain area of expertise. There is a clear conflict of interest in this dynamic that should be made transparent to the public. Wiki articles should not function as an advertising platform or vanity press. Alz236 (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Alz236: Per WP:CREATIVE #3, "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" about someone's work make them notable. In the case of an author, book reviews can establish notability. Here are reviews of Newport's most recent book: The Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes. I've removed the notability tag. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cerebellum: I think that could work. So article should be formatted for a notable author. Don't you agree there should be transparency that the subject is notable for books written, and not necessarily peer-reviewed scientific contributions (until references are provided for such notability). Something like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_Ginder

Youre telling me someone can read this right now other than me? :O — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:521D:7600:650E:E0AA:EBC5:7239 (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

He is most obviously notable, a best-selling author, topping numerous prominent best book lists, writing regularly for the New Yorker, taking part in most prominent podcasts and other media, having a major podcast on his own, with major newspapers regularly reporting on his activities - all in all, it is only Wikipedia ignorants who may raise the question of Cal‘s notability before doing a basic Google search. If you can’t do better, just ask your favorite chatbot if he‘s notable 🙄 2A02:3038:2E0:7876:4DA1:D516:AC23:24D8 (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

pending deletion

I am not familiar with all the requirements for biographies of living persons so I can't comment on how well or poorly this article adheres to them. But it lacks the kinds of problems I would expect to see in such biographies. It is neutral, contains no debatable statements, and is well-sourced. Since Cal Newport merits an entry, I think the article should be improved rather than summarily deleted. Moisture (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I will try to improve it guys! MiniBunks (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)