Talk:Alan Jacobs (academic)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --A.Jacobin (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC) alan jacobs is a notable public intellectual.

The article needs a claim of significance per A7. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 04:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Jacobs is an extremely notable public intellectual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Jacobin (talk • contribs) 04:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

MrScorch6200, please familiarize yourself with WP:ACADEMIC. Alan Jacobs held a named chair at a major US college. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I know that policy, I am only stating that because it was tagged under A7 by another user. Don't you think I would have tagged it in the first place if it applied? --MrScorch6200 (t c) 04:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The distinguished professor title is an immediate pass of WP:PROF and the press coverage already in the article is also a pass of WP:GNG. In general, most academics are not eligible for A7 deletion because they have to do something that makes a claim of significance in order to earn a Ph.D. That does not mean that most academics are notable by Wikipedia standards, only that speedy is the wrong process for them. But in this case he appears to be notable full stop. On the other hand, if (as the similarity of names suggests) A.Jacobin is the same person as Alan Jacobs, he should be admonished per WP:AUTOBIO not to edit this article and instead to make suggestions for its editing on this talk page. He is welcome to contribute to other topics on Wikipedia where his expertise is better balanced by his impartiality. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The notion that I am Alan Jacobs is very flattering... but absurd! — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Jacobin (talk • contribs) 14:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute:

I believe that this section is WP:SYNTH:

“In addition to his academic work and books, Jacobs has been or is a regular contributor to The Atlantic, First Things, The New Atlantis, and The American Conservative."

Grouping them together is WP:OR. Their existence can not be used as sources to support the statement that he is a regular contributor to these publications, a WP:RS needs to directly say it. As far as I can tell none of the sources does so, I would very much like for someone to point out where I’m wrong. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not synthesis; it's just a list. It doesn't draw separate bits of data together to make a conclusion that no reliable source has made before. Synthesis would be something like inferring his political position based solely on where he has published. The phrasing "is or has been a regular contributor" is a reasonable summary of the situation given that he has contributor profiles at the websites of all those publications with a sizeable collection of pieces listed at each one. XOR'easter (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Disagree "is or has been a regular contributor” is a statement that needs to be sourced from a reputable source. Its not a summary of any particular source, if as you say it is in fact a summary of all the sources combined then yes that is synthesis. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Three out of the four of them were already mentioned in independent sources about Jacobs that were already present in the article when you started removing this material. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)