Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Steinberg


 * 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   redirect to The Gatekeepers. Of note is that the nominator also appears to generally agree with a redirect, in a comment within the discussion. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 14:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Jacques Steinberg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No WP:RS to show notability. I've worked on the article in the past and never came up with anything. He worked at the NYTimes, he wrote a book reviewed by the Times, but it wasn't a best seller, and apparently he's not written anything else. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment He's written a book which received significant critical attention, The Gatekeepers, which confers notability on him per WP:AUTHOR. However in situations where someone has genuinely done nothing else, or there is a serious lack of biographical sources, a merge and redirect is possible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * . Yes, that's a good point and I've thought about that. I think it should be deleted and redirected. There are no reliable sources to back up anything about his bio. On the book, I've looked into this, read all the reviews, and read the book. His book did receive attention because he was a NYTimes reporter and the publisher used that fact to get the book reviewed by educators in high places. But the book failed. I'm not sure we should even have an article on the book, which if you have read it as I have, becomes unbearable to read. It's that bad. The narrative fails early on and it never gets better. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect - to The Gatekeepers for now until he happens to establish notability, which might occur if he keeps writing. Then fix The Gatekeepers up into a much better article. If still non-notable, delete that article. Give the benefit of the doubt! ö   Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  15:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's probably the way to go. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 05:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect - to The Gatekeepers - Nom is right. Sources is everything. We cannot have a BLP with only one source. His book seems notable though. So, for the time being, redirect his name to the book. If this is not acceptable for others, then we will have to delete the BLP article. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Gatekeepers as other votes, perhaps merge info into an 'author' section or somesuch. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  11:39, 29 June 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.