Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Noah (2nd nomination)

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The result was AfD withdrawn by nominator. Newyorkbrad 01:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy Noah

This was previously nominated here, and was speedy kept for less than valid reasons. Still fails WP:NOTE. Look at the refs, all the sources are himself talking about himself. NPR picked up the story at one point, but this is only a blurb leading to his colomn again. Fails "multiple independent sources". Done nothing notable besides blast Wikipedia for notability. Let's have a good discussion about this before Noah finds out and screws Wikipedia process up again. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 12:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing nom now that someone actually stopped whining 'but he is notable' and dug up some sources. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: AfD should not be used to prod for sourcing. When someone or something is obviously notable, it's probably better to just tag it and be patient. It is less disruptive, and avoids unnecessary whining. Dhaluza 01:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per . . . myself in the last discussion. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep and urge considering another snowball speedy. Our article could frankly be stronger, but Noah is a well-known columnist who has written memorably for many years on major subjects for a number of prominent publications. Beyond that, although I am sure this is a good-faith nomination and not a WP:POINT violation, there comes a point where seeking to delete a prominent but harmless article like this one goes beyond obeisance to process and risks putting Wikipedia in a position close to self-parody. Newyorkbrad 13:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Prominent? The problems are grounded in the fact that the source for those statements about where he worked are from the author himself! The entire article has not a single source independent of the author, or even a single degree beyond close relation. This is the crux of the problem. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: "The crux of the problem"? I don't think there is a problem. Newyorkbrad 15:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much newspapers fact-check their biographies, but surely the fact that the bios are published on Slate and Washington Monthly websites means they don't contain obviously false information, and that corrections are made whenever it's pointed out that something is incorrect. Clearly the sources could be stronger, but the bios have to count for something? --Interiot 15:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they do, but the point is its on the site he works for. So its not really a source independent of himself. It's not like someone found his worthy enough for a bio. Sorry if I wasn't clear. :) Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that really just a vicious circle though? A writer for undoubtedly notable news sources and opinion journals cannot be notable if his work is published in sources that he is employed by? That's an overextension of notability as a deletion criterion, in my view. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But Slate and Washington Monthly won't publish the bios of their head of computer maintenance or their receptionist, self-written or not. So it is at least marginally independent. Slate and WM publish bios on its public figures, and I think we should too. --Interiot 16:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Jersyko -- disallowing a bio from the author's publisher is going too far. We would accept the author's writings as reliable because the publisher provides editorial oversight. The same should apply to the bio. Dhaluza 23:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine, we'll count that as a source. But whether or not it demonstrates that he's notable, point is the article doesn't by just linking to his columns. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 22:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Slate (magazine). No, the article really couldn't be much stronger (short of removing the unsourced bits), because there aren't any independent sources to write from. If this is speedy kept, I will be going to DRV with it this time where they will undoubtedly send it back here, so think about it a bit before wasting everyone's time. Recury 13:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Newyorkbrad. --Interiot 14:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless multiple reliable sources can be found to independently confirm notability. The nom raises a valid point, all the references appear to be him writing about himself; there needs to be independent references outside of Slate. — Krimpet (talk/review) 15:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Please see my post below, with links to several appearances on CNN, NPR, and PBS which would suggest that those well-established, independent, mainstream media organizations consider Timothy Noah to be an expert in his field. Tvoz | talk 23:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep per Newyorkbrad. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Although he does not appear to pass WP:BIO, a guideline (I haven't checked for sources recently though), he is notable, so WP:IAR, a policy. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I agree with Newyorkbrad, this should be speedy-kept and further attempts to delete regarded as trolling/vandalism. Tim Noah may be lesser-known to the wide public than TV pundits, but Slate's punditry is influential on other journalists and political insiders. He's a prominent practitioner of his trade, and author or editor of multiple books, etc. Auros 22:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, since I'm essentially being called a troll, methinks I should defend meself... As for speedy keep, the previuos AfD was improperly closed... you might want to see WP:SK for criteria, but essentially you can only speedy keep if there is an obvious consensus, the editor is a vandal, or the nom has been withdrawn. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 23:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with David Fuchs on the substance of this debate, but I agree with him in that there shouldn't be a snowball here (and there probably shouldn't have been one before), fwiw. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I also want to be on record that I never called David Fuchs a troll or anything approximating a troll, although I still think that this particular AfD nomination falls somewhere between POINTful and pointless. Newyorkbrad 23:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for the record, and I would say equally if he had opposite political views. DGG 08:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Timothy Noah is a well-known journalist: Senior/contributing writer for two major, influential publications with impressive past resume; winner of two prestigious awards in his field; has appeared as a media/journalism expert and commentator on PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer, CNN's Reliable Sources, WNYC-NPR's Brian Lehrer Show, CNN's International Correspondents, NPR's Day to Day, and likely others; is widely quoted by supporters and opponents alike, for example: here, here, and dozens of other places. This seems to me to be an open-and-shut case for keeping the article, and the fact that it has been re-nominated for deletion suggests to me that there is something going on here that has nothing to do with the subject's notability. I don't care what his politics are, and I especially don't care what he has written about Wikipedia. Last time I looked those were not criteria for keep or delete. If an article about Timothy Noah can be deleted, I fear for the future of the project. When I have a moment I'll add these references to the piece - but they were trivially easy to find in a 10 minute session on Google, and there are many others there, plus I expect many others not picked up on Google - so, again, I question the motives here. Tvoz | talk 22:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say 'whoop de do, yes of course I'm an evil republican hur hur' but I'll state again this has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the fact that if it's not sourced, it meets deletion criteria. "When I have a moment I'll add these references to the piece"- that's all jolly good, but I've been to many an AfD where those who cried 'keep' never got around to doing the sourcing i.e. MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT (of the author) REFERENCES! Hate to yell, but everyone's running around this, and if the AfD fails this time, if six months comes around and it still hasn't improved, it definitely will get deleted then. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 23:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Although that hypothetical won't happen, the statement in your last sentence is not true: there is no way this article could or would or should be deleted, as the subject's notability is, as it always has been, beyond peradventure; and at this point there are overtones of arguing for the sake of arguing, which should stop. Newyorkbrad 23:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you've had that experience, but I didn't say that there are references out there in the ether that I'll at some point locate and post, I actually posted them here a few minutes ago. And I intend to post them in the article - or anyone can. But do these references satisfy your concerns regarding "multiple independent of the author" indications of the man's notability? And if so, when they are posted to the article will you withdraw your request for deletion? I have no dog in this fight - I wasn't involved in the last round, so I'm not defending my own position here - I just see a request for deletion of an article about someone I've heard of (as opposed to the many, many, many articles that survive about which I have never heard), so my attention was piqued. I understand that the references have to actually be in the article, but I would like a reading from you and others if these references would turn delete into keep for any of you, and if not, why not. Tvoz | talk 23:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Doesn't anyone appreciate the irony that even if he was not notable before the previous nomination, the article he wrote about his WP bio being nominated for non-notability now makes him even more notable? Dhaluza 23:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been mentioned in passing on the article talkpage and elsewhere, although his notability is hardly dependent on that recent development. Newyorkbrad 23:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I found the moment, and posted five tv/radio appearances. Tvoz | talk 00:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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.