Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Zurawik


 * 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. While there are a number of outstanding pro deletion comments, none post date or address the substantial changes in the article around the middle of the discussion. This appears to be a WP:HEY situation. However my close is without prejudice to a future renomination that is based on the current condition of the article. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

David Zurawik

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article has been tagged for notability since August 2015. Sources are primarily of the WP:PRIMARY sort, things that he wrote. He doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC or any other notability guideline. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 02:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 02:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 02:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 02:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete there is a lack ofsecondary sources about him to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - His name comes up a lot in stuff he's written, but there is not enough in-depth coverage about him to satisfy WP:GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete unless better sourced. I would agree that there is insufficient in-depth coverage. He has held a number of positions within media outlets, but the competition in the news business is so fierce that he does not stand out. Knox490 (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sustained and substantial appearances on national media outlets and consultation as an expert in his field lead me to believe he is notable. I consider that this is adequate to pass WP:NACADEMIC, which states "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed". Zurawik and his works (articles) and comments are frequently included in publications by others. Was recently highlighted for an award. I added references. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * comment After checking annual views of article on the talk page, there appears to be intermittent spikes in views/interest in this article. Notability is certainly not dependent on viewership nor is this a RS but this may point towards notability. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Article is in a substantially different state than it was when originally nominated due to a total re-write by. Do any of the early participants care to revisit their positions?
 * Weak keep, but improve the sources. I did a quick read through of the article, and searched him up on Google. It seems that he does pass WP:GNG (barely) and WP:ANYBIO. He won the Arthur Rowse Award for press criticism, a National Press Award (which is reliable referenced here and is independent of the subject]). In WP:JOURNALIST, he meets criteria in point four, sentence b. Though sources and the writing of the article and its format needs improvement, that is not a reason for deletion per WP:ARTN and WP:ANYBIO. Per these criteria, I support a weak keep. I would also support userfying/draftying the article and moving to the main-space if the article is improved.  CookieMonster755  ✉    20:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep As stated above, the article needs work. I went in and cleaned it up some but it needs more improvement. Nevertheless, I easily found a substantial number of articles from national media outlets that either quote the subject or cite the articles he has authored. I found three four five journalism awards, including two from the National Press Club, plus one 1st place award. Because of the sustained and substantial coverage of the subject, plus his national awards, the subject clearly passes WP:BIO and satisfies WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as borderline notability and highly promotional. He's primarily a journalist, not a professor. He does not meet WP:PROF, which  is met by being shown as an authority in the person's academic field, which is measured by academic references and academic awards, not by appearances on national media. There are only two awards, the ones by the National Press Club, and I see no information that this is a major award. Finalist, and third place, are not winning awards. Articles from newspapers quoting the subject or referring to the subject  do not show notability, unless they are substantially about the subject, not just giving his views on a particular issue. The article is almost entirely devoted to presenting his political views--he has many opportunities for doing that, but WP is not one of them. If the article is kept, most of the contents will need to be removed. There is one additional element of notability: his book. I added a review, but a single moderately successful book is not enough for NAUTHOR. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 07:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. He has got multiple awards and the article seems to be sourced enough to be kept. Harut111 (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Most sources seem to be just him referencing himself in various forms. SamanthaFinmore (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. Worldbruce (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, WP:HEYMANN by [[User:AuthorAuthor makes this bio of this author, critic, professor and long-time journalist a clear keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments: I looked at all 25 references. There are five dead or misdirected links, three with the Sun winning awards, and the subject winning the Arthur Rowse Award for Press Criticism-print twice. This is an accomplishment but not the Pulitzer Prize in one of the 21 categories, the Alfred I. duPont awards with 16 categories, or even the Peabody Award. The rest of the sources are primary that does not contribute to notability and as mentioned above there would need to be more (non-primary) reliable sources. I will offer that any "WP:HEYMANN" would be directed at at  and "Respect for contributors willing to improve articles of questioned notability". I am leaning towards delete at this time but seeing if there can be other sources found. Otr500 (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep He's a notable author, best known for his 28 years as TV critic for The Baltimore Sun (Wikipedia, incidentally, cites him ~75 times in this capacity) and for a book about television. The article cites reviews of his book in American Jewish History and the Baltimore Chronicle. I've added four more reviews to a "further reading" section. These reviews are sufficient to meet WP:AUTHOR criterion #3. That said, there's a lot of peripheral content in the article, supported by primary sources, that should be trimmed. For example, he's one of 45 editors on the editorial board of a SAGE journal, but so what? As  says, the article needs further improvement. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2018 (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.