Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Auerbach (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 no consensus. A rough headcount shows that "delete" and "keep" opinions are about equally divided, 14 to 13. As is usual in discussions about controversial topics that draw a wide non-Wikipedian audience, I'm discounting opinions by IPs and very new accounts to filter out meatpuppets, sockpuppets and canvassed individuals, so as to increase the likelihood that the outcome reflects the consensus and practice of the community of Wikipedia editors. This gets us an adjusted headcount of about 12 "delete" to 8 "keep". Assessing the strength of argument in light of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I have to discount a few other opinions because they do not address the policy-based rationale for deletion, such as the "keep" that just likes a particular article Auerbach wrote, and give less weight to opinions that merely assert, rather than discuss, the subject's (non-)notability. The remaining opinions, by mostly experienced editors, paint a picture of a journalist who is "borderline" notable in Wikipedia terms, with editors disagreeing in good faith about whether the coverage about him is sufficient to warrant inclusion. That's not something I can determine by fiat, and therefore, even though we have a numerical trend in favor of deletion, we do not have consensus, resulting in the article being kept by default, for now. I recommend that any renomination takes place at least a few months from now, which might reduce the risk of distraction by Internet drama.  Sandstein  07:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

David Auerbach
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

(Previous deletion discussion was for an unrelated subject with the same name).

No indication from searches that the subject is covered by multiple independent, reliable sources. Sources cited in the article are predominantly written by the subject and are in any case only listed to note their work history or opinions. The only independent source cited on the page is an awards landing page which lists Auerbach's employment at Slate.

They do show up in Google Scholar/Books, but that's partially their patents (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=l1LvKQIAAAAJ) and books referencing their articles (I've spot checked some of them and they don't appear to go beyond passing mentions). Protonk (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that this is not actually a 2nd nomination, since the "other" AFD for for a different person with the same name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's literally the first line in my statement above. Protonk (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry. My error. In trying to figure out who Auerbach is and what's behind the unusual interest in this page, I had begun with the article's talk page, and was surprised to find that the AFT at the top wasn't him at all.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources.  He gets quoted sometimes in other people's articles, but that's not enough to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and NinjaRobotPirate.--Jorm (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has 4 clear references, each of which are independent reliable sources: Slate, Reuters, New America and The Association of Magazine media. 118.101.253.77 (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Three of those four references are self published and the fourth is a biography on the subject. None of them are what could be considered "solid" sources, and three of them shouldn't be used.  They do not establish any kind of notability.--Jorm (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , that is not correct. See below, for Elaenia's comment. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The references are articles/blog entries written by the subject and there's no indication of notability based on search results. Elaenia (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The references are certainly not reliable third-party sources. This is the website of an organization where he is a fellow, this is one of his articles in Slate (a fine publication, of course--but it's not publishing about him), this is...who knows, but it's not a reliable media outlet, and this is another article by him. We need third-party references that discuss the subject. We don't seem to have any. Until we do, delete. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the references added by Draco, I think he's a bit more notable than he was before--the Atlantico piece, while it does not directly discuss him as a subject, it does cite him as authoritative in that field. The other three mentions are just too brief to add up to notability as in passing the GNG. I suppose I'm going weak delete. But Draco, thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This entire dustup seems to have sprouted from a Twitter spat, not any genuine concern for encyclopedic integrity.24.127.162.236 (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if that were true (I'm not on Twitter, fortunately), it doesn't affect the basic argument. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Except if it hadn't been for that Twitter dustup, no one would have bothered with this retaliatory AfD. 2601:602:8D00:19:7DEF:9A9A:3E5:4BBD (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't following the Tweetdrama, but after taking a look, unless I'm missing something, this AfD precedes it. Auerbach's Twitter history is peppered with mentions of Wikipedia, but the "dustup" is, I presume, what started with this tweet on 4/11. This AfD was opened 4/10. Obviously there are people coming to this thread who became aware of it through Twitter (I note that it didn't see any participation until 4/13), but it clearly wasn't retaliatory. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't appear to be the subject of independent, reliable coverage. PeterTheFourth (talk)
 * Delete Per nom. Subject does not meet wikipedia's notability criteria. 24.212.171.134 (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject clearly meets wikipedia's notability criteria. 109.255.136.28 (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep (see comments below) - I'm a little surprised, but I'm not seeing sufficient coverage about the subject to satisfy WP:GNG. Several mentions of particular articles, plenty of primary sources, plenty of social media, but not enough of the kind of sources we need. Happy to reconsider if someone can point me/us towards sources. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 12:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Updated to keep. I went back and did another search with WP:JOURNALIST #1 in mind, rather than searching for articles about Auerbach and found enough to satisfy it. So long as we consider someone notable for being "widely cited by peers", he is indeed notable. I guess I don't evaluate journalist AfDs all that often. Here are some of the sources I found which demonstrate this, and these look to just be scraping the surface: Daily Mail, Fast Company, Huffington Post, Washington Post, The Guardian, Tech Crunch, Los Angeles Times, Columbia Journalism Review, Vice Motherboard, Aljazeera, Washington Post again, The Verge, Bloomberg View... &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I need to say something about the direction this thread has taken via some of the keep votes. Any !vote based on Wikipedia public relations rationales should be completely disregarded. It's been shown that this nomination was not a retaliation, having been initiated before the recent Twitter mess. I presume some participants are here because they don't like Auerbach and some are here because he brought their attention to it and they wish to defend him. Neither is great, but there's no reason whatsoever this discussion shouldn't stick to the question of whether or not the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. If someone has a strong bias either way, that's not ideal, but it's ok for people to have an opinion if they also have strong arguments. The problem is when opinions take the place of substance (where substance=arguments as to whether notability criteria are satisfied). What is total nonsense is the idea that because he criticizes Wikipedia and is willing to rant about this AfD to his Twitter followers, that this article should somehow be treated with kid gloves for "appearances". Absolutely not. He's notable; keep the article because he's notable; weigh the arguments about notability; keep PR out of it. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep No mention of sources in talk page, no attempts to improve article. Should give time to improve sources or at least make an attempt before deletion. Fangrim (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Apart from the articles that this person has written for the magazine company he works for, I don't see any secondary independent reliable sources that asserts significant coverage exists and that WP:GNG is satisfied. The sources listed in the article appear to either be primary sources (such as this one), or simply mention the person's name and is not in-depth coverage (such as this one). The other two sources are simply article that the person has written and do not count as reliable sources at all. Also appears to fail WP:NAUTHOR as well.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Issues of timing aside, the subject fails WP:GNG pretty clearly. He's obviously written a ton for many reputable publications, but no reputable publications have written about him. I dug around a good amount and can't find much of anything beyond things like forum discussions. I can't even really find non-RS blogs talking about him. Of the currently used references, two are articles written by Auerbach, the New America source is not independent of the subject, and the last is just a directory listing. —Torchiest talkedits 15:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I could see a redirect to Slate (magazine) as an option, as the page is getting a few hundred hits per month, meaning it's a possible search term. —Torchiest talkedits 02:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - After further consideration, and especially in light of 's comments below about Wikipedia's reputation, I'm changing my position. This is a borderline case, and deletion could actually harm the project, while providing few benefits. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 20:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The allegations that this AFD is motivated by anything except Wikipedia policies are frivolous, unfounded, and a violation of our core principle assume good faith.   They should be struck from this page as disruptive and irrelevant.  However, I believe that writing for a prominent publication like Slate confers sufficient notability for an article.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually it doesn't. That ship sailed long ago.  Just being a good writer at a top publication, or good at anything, doesn't confer notability.  Even two profile articles about him could be sufficient, but apparently they don't exist.  I'm having trouble understanding the keep votes in this discussion, its not like we're dealing with a new issue here.  Cf. Andrea Peyser, an article that for some reason caused amusement elsewhere when I wrote it, but there have been a number of articles written about her.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  16:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This is the "GamerGate Controversy" article all over again. The material on the article isn't extensive or inflammatory; corrective action of the complaints of unreliable sources are a notation to provide better sources, not to delete the article - this is clearly a retaliation tactic. &mdash; .  cmatrix4761  ( talk ) 15:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * cmatrix4761 - "GamerGate Controversey"? "Retaliation tactic"? I think your reasoning and assertions are a bit over-the-top here. I highly recommend that you take a look at Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, as well as Wikipedia's notability guidelines regarding authors. These are the two guidelines that most editors will reference or review while they research and make a decision regarding this AFD discussion.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   15:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I found four third-party sources in renowned publications just by rummaging around a little bit just now. Added to the article. The Atlantico source is particularly lovely. DracoE 16:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait...wait...Draco, you're suggesting keep...so that means you're a GamerGater? No, an anti-GamerGater! No, an anti-anti-GamerGater! It couldn't be as simple as having found good sources that I now need to read and maybe revaluate my opinion... come on, we're all partisan hacks here. Play along please. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Atlantico piece is trivial; it mainly focuses on the game and gives no commentary on Auerbach himself. The Verge has just a single quote from him; Numerama and Planet F each cite him once in passing. In short, while these all appear to be reliable sources independent of the subject, none of the coverage in them is significant; there's no analysis of the subject. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 16:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , that is not quite true. The Atlantico article quotes Mr Auerbach at length and even mentions his sister and brother. As for the other sources, let's just say that it would be nice if the other contributors to this discussion had a look at them and made up their own minds.
 * , you know me so well. I've got gamer friends, software developer friends, and a child who used to live for WoW and Minecraft. Oh, and I was also the gamergaters' bête noire du jour for a hot minute back in September 2014.


 * Have you seen Mr Auerbach's recent tweets? Look past the hyperbole and you'll find another BLP "subject" who was hurt by WP. I don't enjoy seeing people get hurt on here, even if they appear to be masochists who think that having a Wikipedia biography is all that. David Auerbach may eventually wake up to the fact that having to examine the recent additions to his article for libel and trollage for the rest of his life is not as much fun as advertised. He may find himself declared the dad of a baby with a fellow journalist he's just good friends with. Far-fetched? Try me. Check how long it took you and your colleagues to "fix" that outrageous example of BLP feckery. There's too few of you to even notice this kind of carp. WP is among the most irresponsible websites on this planet, and, yet, as this case proves, people still seem keen on being listed as notable on here.


 * I'm actually hoping that you guys will decide to delete Mr Auerbach's article so as to ensure that another Wikipedia critic will help you all dig yourself some more into that warm and comfy grave you're all busy working on. DracoE 18:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The piece in the atlantico is basically them re-blogging his slate article. Any detail there (including the biographical detail you mention) about Auerbach were in his slate column--I checked. That's not a source focusing on the subject at all. Protonk (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh hai, . You mean to say that Atlantico found Mr Auerbach's piece in Slate important enough to quote from it? Got you. You know what else I got? The fact that you, as an employee of a WMF spinoff, get to nominate the biography of a Wikipedia critic for deletion. That has more than a whiff of impropriety about it. DracoE 04:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's stop with the bullshit conspiracy theories, please? I !voted here, and the subject then went on a multi-tweet screed about an imagined conspiracy because I have talked with Gamaliel at some point in time.  It's pointless and incorrect.  This article should never have passed the first order of page curation and validation; I'm frankly surprised that we're even having this conversation. So please: let's stop with the aspersions.  They make you look bad; no one else.--Jorm (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Draco's right - whatever the outcome it would be better if we avoid the appearance of impropriety . Given the number of current (and former) WMF-ers who found their way to this obscure little article we're not doing a very good job. Maybe a friendly push or two will help. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, right. I haven't worked at the Foundation in over a year and a half and I'm probably the last person to be singing its praises overall. I had no idea who the fuck this guy was, or that he was a "Wikipedia critic" (who isn't?) and ProtonK isn't a WMF employee nor has been, ever. But keep barking that conspiracy theory. It's really believable.  --Jorm (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet WP:GNG Ylevental (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep For this one article alone. Global warming is the most important thing in the world. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Simply because you like something the subject wrote does not a strong or valid keep rationale make.--Jorm (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think people who have written RS articles exposing the tragedy of global warming deserve special treatment, WP should adopt such a policy as a public service. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as a WP:GNG fail. There is not enough third-party coverage about David Auerbach. SST flyer 12:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The notability guidelines most directly applicable here are WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. I have just asked the subject at his userpage (he has an account at Wikipedia) for assistance in locating high quality sources that cover him directly. As he is the subject he would be in the best position to know about the existence of such sources, but it would be decent of us to allow him at least a few days to respond. Closing admin please take note: The subject has raised concerns that the underlying motivation of some !voters at this AfD may be revenge-based rather than policy-based. I think the discussion so far has been well within the realm of policy, so I only raise this so that it can't later be said that this issue was not considered in the closing of this AfD. -Thibbs (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Basically per Marteau. I haven't heard back from the subject so I assume he's not interested in engaging. The concerns Torchiest raised mirror mine closely, but this is a borderline case and I'd rather err on the side of caution given the nasty reputation Wikipedia is gaining as a bludgeon to be used to victimize cultural/political enemies. I highly doubt that the nomination or the vast majority of the delete votes were tainted by impure motives, and I want to be clear about that, but Marteau's cost-benefit analysis which emphasizes the appearance of this AfD is convincing. There is very little harm in keeping this stub even if it means following IAR. -Thibbs (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am new to deletion discussions, so could someone help me understand how articles like Emily Temple-Wood pass (OTHERSTUFF aside) but so many delete votes show up for an article about a prominent and influential Wikipedia critic? If Mr Auerbach wrote positively about Wikipedia would we see different votes? And to boot a nomination started by a WMF affiliate employee? With hounding of participants by an ex employee of the WMF? This article subject is clearly worth a listing in our project, but I won't bother to cast a vote. It seems like the powers that be have already decided what willl happen here. I hope this is a trend that will not continue. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There are a few ways you can determine the difference between this and another article which seems to have been chosen at random. First, you can review the deletion discussion for that very article and review the comments left by editors. Second, you could look at the sources cited (or those available via a search) and note that there's at least a half dozen sources in that article which cover the subject in detail--a requirement for the general notability guideline that Auerbach doesn't meet. Protonk (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the more I think about it, that's not such a great comparison, because ETW's article was mostly being discussed around WP:BLP1E, a different, somewhat more restrictive guideline which applies to subjects who have had a lot written about them for one event and not others. The deletion arguments there focused on that because the GNG was already met. Had she not met the GNG at all, the discussion would've been a lot shorter. Protonk (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie, the basic issue is that the subject here hasn't had major newspaper profiles written about him, while Wood has. With Wood, the debate focused on BLP1E, and I don't think her article was wise to keep.  I've written articles on many journalists, and I wouldn't have created one on Auerbach, as it wouldn't meet WP:GNG.  If anything, the swirl of controversy surrounding this discussion is more likely to result in an incorrect keep.  I haven't "voted" either because if the closing admin is weighing policy and the strength of the arguments, delete is the correct outcome.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  11:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This is admittedly a borderline notable subject, however, the benefits of having one fewer stub in the encyclopedia is FAR outweighed by the resulting public appearances of impropriety and resulting appearances of agenda driven or politically driven edits. Appearances matter.  As they say in politics, this is a case of "bad optics" and I say that if the cost of avoiding such bad optics is keeping one measly stub, keep the stub. Marteau (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear!E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as still not solidly convincing enough. SwisterTwister   talk  05:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Not enough coverage in RS about the subject to pass NAUTHOR or GNG. There is not even a good claim of notability in the article. He writes for Slate. So? He thinks Wikipedia is screwed up. So? How is this significant? The article is a stub because there is nothing to say about this person not because there are RS out there on which to base an article on but are not in the article yet. This is the very definition of non-notable. J bh  Talk  13:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep His work/articles, including his writings about Wikipedia, gets significant secondary coverage, making him a sufficiently notable journalist to have an article.  In addition to which there is the fact (not a WP policy-based argument, merely a fact) that deleting a journalist notable in part for his published criticism of Wikipedia makes Wikipedia look as unreliable as he says it is.  Let's not be so thin-skinned.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per E.M.Gregory. Satisfies GNG. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 18:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How does he pass GNG? The link noted has only passing mentions and quotes, and those from Brietbart or, his home publication, Slate. What significant coverage about him is there? I will happily change my !vote if some can be shown.  J bh  Talk  19:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Scroll down that link to find discussions of his articles in Forbes, Reason (magazine). Here's The Atlantic citing his "masterful" review of a new Pynchon novel [].  The argument here is  [WP:JOURNALIST]]  # 1. "widely cited by peers."  More out there.  But I am also concerned that the animus apparent in this AFD may be due to the fact that he is known for his widely cited criticism of Wikipedia, i.e. WP:COI, and it just makes us look silly and yo know, like we WP:OWN Wikipedia because we edit here and so we delete the bios of our critics.  I'm not accusing any particular editors of bias, just saying that this is how this debate will look to others.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... One Forbes article has one sentence "Blame Apple" wrote David Auerbach of Slate and this one is about a different person unless he is a RAND policy analyst. The Atlantic article you link says only "Since you can read a definitive review of Pynchon's novel by David Auerbach..." and nothing else. This does not come close to any of our notability criteria.  J bh  Talk  00:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Auerbach has several more strings to his bow than have yet comeo out in this discussion (or on his page.) See:, , . Not to mention a forthcoming book being published by Pantheon Books....E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As someone who's tried hard to get marginal authors' articles saved on many occasions, I know that simple listings of upcoming lectures and the like are not sufficient. The New America link is already in the article, and is not an independent source. Perhaps if his book gets coverage, this could be recreated. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 02:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In response to Torchiest and JBHunley, My point is that this is one of the ways to separate notable journalists form non-notable ones, and that Auerback can be seen as somewhat notable. Notable journalists win fellowships to spend a year writing a book at a think-tank; get a contract from a major publisher; are invited by universities and major public forums to speak and be panelists; and other writers endorse their work by citing it.  In Auerbach's case, on a great many of the topics he has written about, you easily find people citing him in books, or, for example, this week, in The Verge: "By then, as Slate tech columnist David Auerbach wrote, Reddit was widely seen as "a cesspool of hate in dire need of repair."  .  Notability for a journalist is cumulative.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Credability for a journalist is cumulative however, in the Wikipedia world, WP:NOTABILITY is not. Many of the keep votes seem to rest on a special pleading to avoid bad optics. Optics may inform editorial discression in borderline cases of things like DUE etc once a subject passes the threshold for inclusion but are in no way an appropriate reason to do an end run arround established content guidelines. J bh  Talk  16:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Now wait just a cotton pickin' minute here... nobody is trying to "do an end run" around any guidelines. First of all, WP:NOTABILITY is a "guideline" not policy. In fact, it says right there on the guideline page:  "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply".
 * Note the "common sense" and "occasional exceptions". This is a borderline case, and reasonable minds can disagree, but implying that I am trying to pull a fast one (or an "end run") is kind of offensive.  There is a case to be made for inclusion, and it is not as black and white as some here are implying.
 * What we have here is, in my opinion, an "occasional exception" requiring "common sense". The "common sense" here is, the cost versus benefits.  The benefit here to deleting this article?  One less stub, and that's about it.  The cost?  Perhaps Wikipedia's reputation.  That's it, in sum.  Editors here are willing to risk reinforcing the encylopedia's reputation for deleting the articles of critics for what exactly?  One less stub.  What a cost for such a stupendously small benefit.
 * What exactly IS "Wikipedia's reputation"? The encyclopedia has a reputation for putting up for deletion the articles of people and organizations that criticize Wikipedia or the causes its editors advocate.  Here's an example of what I'm talking about:  editor "Cwobeel" submits the article of a webzine critical of Wikipedia for deletion.  His timing was impeccable... he submitted it for deletion literally within a matter of days of The Federalist's criticisms of Wikipedia.  There was a certain amount of attention payed to his action amongst Wikipedia watchers and some media watchers.  This event damaged Wikipedia's reputation and for what?  To have one fewer stub?  Was that the benefit Cwobeel was seeking when he put the reputation of the encyclopedia in harms way?
 * We have a similar case here. A media critic of Wikipedia suddenly finds his article up for deletion.  Yes, it looks horrible, and has terrible optics. And yes, deleting it will seal Wikipedia's reputation for vindictiveness.  And for what?  So there can be one less stub?  Astounding.
 * Let's show some "common sense" here. In a borderline case for inclusion, where the very reputation of the encyclopedia is on the line, let's give that reputation at least a little weight in our deliberations, whattaya say? Marteau (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with the comments of User:Marteau, above, who wrote: Keep This is admittedly a borderline notable subject, however, the benefits of having one fewer stub in the encyclopedia is FAR outweighed by the resulting public appearances of impropriety and resulting appearances of agenda driven or politically driven edits. Appearances matter.  As they say in politics, this is a case of "bad optics" and I say that if the cost of avoiding such bad optics is keeping one measly stub, keep the stub..E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Also prize: .E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment the 'prize' is a nom, not a win. 78.145.23.228 (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There speaks a man who has never been shortlisted for a prize.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep sources seem sufficient to establish notability. Artw (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG & WP:AUTHOR, and I find the special pleadings to keep the article for appearances sake to be unconvincing 78.145.23.228 (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly not so clear. What is unusual about his page, compared with run of the mill AFD discussions, is the lack of interest on the part of editors in searching for sources.  Granted, it's tricky, since the best keywords to use when a guy has had multiple patents granted to him, has both worked in and written about relatively arcane fields of software development, and has a name that he shares with several people, including a businessman involved in IT, and at least a couple of published academics.  Nevertheless, I am used to AFDs re: Authors, journalists, and scholars in which editors search for and bring sources to the discussion.  We are under scrutiny, and it's not admirable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2016 (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.