Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Jacobs (journalist)


 * 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   keep. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Jacobs (journalist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not 100% sure that this subject passes NBIO. His name does show up a lot online, but it seems to be because he is a journalist for a major newspaper. Also, the subject seems to note that the article was created for the sole purpose of disparaging him as is evident from some of the recent edits by SPAs who want to add information to say tht he has been hypocritical of his own writing or other negative aspects of his role as a foreign press member in the PRC.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 18:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm misreading, but would you please explain where this piped story says "the subject seems to note that the article was created for the sole purpose of disparaging him"? Jacobs' "The War of Words in China" article says this WP page was "ostensibly devoted to my journalistic achievements" and quotes it that "'Since 2008, Jacobs has written over 400 articles, the vast majority of which portray China in a negative light,' read the entry, which went on to claim that many of those articles contained 'journalistic distortions'." Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Jacobs claims that his article has been edited by accounts seeking to disparage him by saying that he has portrayed China in a negative light in his reporting. In the past few days, an account came by to add a sentence saying that the subject does not believe he acts this way, while also adding a reference to an article the subject wrote covering the Uighur (sp?) clashes.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 15:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's OK, it's easy to understand why you didn't answer the question. I just wanted to point out the creative paraphrasing for editors who vote on this AfD. Keahapana (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete . As far as I can tell, subject fails JOURNALIST. Thanks, and cheers,  Lixxx235 - Talk 18:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing !vote to Keep. Thanks for below. Thanks, and cheers,  Lixxx235 - Talk 13:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Obvious keep Surprised to see this under China-related discussions. I don't understand what specific WP:BIO criteria this Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times journalist fails to meet. If we delete this article, then do we have to delete most of the 332 other journalists listed under "The New York Times writers" category, or just those who report from China? Keahapana (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, must respond. The source for Pulitzer goes to NY Times as a whole, and I didn't see anything about subject being a part of that team. If I missed something, please ping me. Thanks, and cheers,  Lixxx235 - Talk 22:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. I looked a little harder and it seems it was the wrong Pulitzer.  He was part of the team that won in 2009, not 2002.--Nowa (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nowa. The original ref (now ironically marked {cn}) linked to the 2002 award for the "A Nation Challenged" series. If one goes to the NYT homepage, clicks search, types "Andrew Jacobs" and "A Nation Challenged", one can see his 20 articles. Thanks again for adding the 2009 prize ref, and would you also revert the deleted 2002 info? Perhaps we should say "multiple Pulitzer Prize-winning". Keahapana (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keehapana: Good point, but let's continue on the article talk page since this is about content.--Nowa (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Getting a Pulitzer Prize plus his other accolades pushes him over the requisite notability threshold as having "won significant critical attention". The Chinese obviously don't like him but Wikipedia is not censored. AFAICT, the article has no BLP violations that would warrant its deletion. Eyes need to remain on the article to make sure the non-NPOV pushers don't sneak back in. Philg88 ♦talk 07:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * He was not the sole recipient of the prize. He was part of a group afaik.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 15:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but the guideline doesn't state that the contributions of individuals don't count towards a major prize. I don't think anyone would argue that Francis Crick isn't notable because all his work was done in conjunction with James Watson. Philg88 ♦talk 15:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What about all the other scientists who worked with them but were not named as recipients of the prize?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 15:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Jacobs is named as a winner in the Pulitzer Prize citation per the reference in the article. He just wasn't the only contributor, which doesn't make him any less notable. Philg88 ♦talk 05:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2014 (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.