Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James D. Zirin


 * 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. North America1000 13:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

James D. Zirin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This WP:AUTOBIO was speedily deleted twice (2x), followed by five (5x) rejections at AfC, before being accepted on the sixth attempt.

Unfortunately, I can't see how it's improved to pass WP:GNG. I recommend that, if deletion is approved, this article then be WP:SALTED or we will be in a revolving carousel of continual recreation for the next decade. (Pinging previous persons active on the draft and deleted versions of this article: User:Chrissymad, User:Ladypaperclip, User:Kvng, User:Sulfurboy, User:C.Fred, User:Mr. MacTidy.) Chetsford (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The subject has written two books which are claimed to have been "bestsellers" (the claim sourced to an autobiography on nyc.gov), however, the actual name of the bestseller list is not specified and I can't find.
 * 4 of the seven references listed are unambiguously WP:RSSELF; a fifth is "probably" RSSELF (the probable autobio on nyc.gov); the sixth and seventh are short reviews of the subject's books that provide no biographical information on the subject.
 * Large sections of core biographical information of this BLP are unsourced and will never be able to be sourced due to the paucity of RS information about this person. We don't even have enough RS information to establish such basic elements of a bio as an approximate date / place of birth.
 * His service on the New York City Commission to Combat Police Corruption does not pass WP:NPOL.
 * Hosting a show on a college TV station does not indicate notability.
 * His former work as an AUSA is not notable as there are thousands of AUSAs at any given moment.
 * The claim that one of his books has received a Kirkus Star is unremarkable; Kirkus Reviews is a (partial) pay-for-play reviewer and 10% of their reviews receive a Kirkus Star. It's not the Nobel Prize or the Booker Award.
 * Reality check 1. Book reviews do, in fact, establish notability as per WP:AUTHOR #.3; Contrary to Chetsford's assertion, below, it is impossible to pay for a marriage announcement article in the New York Times (you can pay for a boxed ad announcing anything you choose, but weddings are editorial and cannot be bought); and Contrary to Chetsfords assertion below, there are many articles with WP:SIGCOV, in addition to article Zirin wrote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, it looks like you just fill-out an online form and the Times will run your wedding announcement for free . Chetsford (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Trivial as this is, you are wrong. The NYTimes gets inundated with requests to cover people's marriages.  So they have a system: you fill in the form, they decide if you're notable (highly accomplished bride and/or groom, or child of highly notable parents, or unusual and interesting couple) they assign a journalist to fact check and writer the actual copy.  It is important to read links you use to support an assertion carefully, or to know what you're talking about. This link reads: The Times does not charge for publishing these reports, but space is limited and we cannot guarantee publication. If it is published..." E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This appears correct. From my understanding, the NY Times has regular announcements and a more in-depth Vows column. Both are fact-checked (FAQ's: "Submissions are rewritten, fact-checked and edited to Times standards"). This Times article, "Writing the Vows Column Means Crashing Weddings for a Living", states: "Anyone can submit an application online, from which Ms. Wilcox and her staff choose "very subjectively".... Chosen announcements are then thoroughly fact checked... For those that become a full Vows feature, a Times reporter and photographer attend the wedding ceremony and reception...". --Animalparty! (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry? I was agreeing with you. Chetsford (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * His books have received very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such as the Economist and Slate. Doesn't that make him notable as an author? FloridaArmy (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Book reviews don't establish the type of deep biographical information necessary for a BLP. They don't tell us about his birthplace, his DOB, his education, his career background. They only prove he is a living human. Being a living human is not sufficient to establish notability. Chetsford (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the notability criteria for creative persons book reviews do establish notability for an author. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work."

"The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention" I think it would be strange of an artist or authors works were notable but they weren't. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC) *Comment The article was speedily deleted twice due to copyright violations not because the subject was found not notable. The number of attempts at AFC is not so relevant as there were more copyvios which were corrected, and there is a learning curve for new writers. I am surprised to read this long opinionated assessment of the nominator here today, when he has been so busy at AFC reviewing over 100 articles in 24 hours on his first day of AFC reviewing, with 21 in one hour during that time. 2 to 3 minutes per draft is hardly time for most editors to even read over the draft and do a copyvio check. It looks like perhaps that your speed has made the AFC process and wikipedia suffer, much less the probable loss of many first time editors. Lacypaperclip (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If we're going to play this game I'd note you have a 59.1% match rate here at AfD while I have a 91.6% match . So perhaps we should keep the comments focused on notability of the article, and not attack each other's competence as editors and reviewers. Sound good? Chetsford (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

*Keep Yes it does. There are multiple reviews of his books in WP:RS and with the other references as well the subject certainly passes WP:GNG. Also the nominator stated will never be able to be sourced. New sources come online all the time, as well other sources which were not found previously could turn up. One really cannot make that statement accurately. Lacypaperclip (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Book reviews (can) establish the notability of books, not authors (see: WP:BKCRIT). Per our WP:GNG: significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail. The two book reviews only establish that he wrote two books. Notability is not demonstrated simply by proving a person is real and alive. As Chrissymad explained to Mr. Zirin on her talk page after she rejected a version of his autobiography substantially similar to the one you approved: "The issue is that neither of these sources are coverage of the individual." Chetsford (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Borderline - it's not a great article - Zirin does seem to have written a lot of articles for the Washington Times, but that doesn't help improve an article. If federal judges pass WP:NPOL why don't federal prosecutors? Federal judges aren't elected either ... Im leaning towards thinking a federal prosecutor meets the guideline. But I'm not sure how much improvement can be expected in terms of content for the article. SeraphWiki (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Great question, SeraphWiki. I think the reason federal judges are notable, and prosecutors are not, is that (according to our article United States federal judge), there have been 3,294 in the 242 history of the United States. Meanwhile, there were 5,300 federal prosecutors just in the year 2008 alone. . (To be clear, though, the 93 United States Attorneys are notable, however, Zirin's unsourced claim is that he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney; of which there are 5,000+ at any one time, ranging from seasoned litigators to freshly minted 25 year-old JDs). Chetsford (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

*comment The claim you state is unsourced is because you keep removing the sourced citation for it as part of your disruption to the article. Lacypaperclip (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Lacypaperclip - could I kindly ask you to please properly thread your comments so they're easier to follow? It can be disruptive when you push each of your comments into the first position and slap a new bolded alert onto them. Also, I know I've asked this before but if there's a way I can convince you to focus your discussion on the notability of the subject instead of attacking the intentions of other editors that would be great. It does sidetrack the process a bit. You created a dedicated space here to question my competence so perhaps you could corral your commentary about me to that space? I appreciate your help. Chetsford (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

*comment When an editor makes a comment they can use comment to delineate it. I have done nothing disruptive here. I was pointing out that your statement that the claim was unsourced is not true. I have the right to point that out and explain that you kept removing it so everyone could understand why the statement is unsourced at the moment. I am keeping other discussions now at their proper venues. You do not need to convince me of anything or "tell me how to focus on discussion". Please keep your comments on the content not the contributors. I was focusing on the notability of the subject and a claim about him which is supported by a reliable source. That is not attacking others intentions. Lacypaperclip (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I searched newspapers.com and I did find quite a bit of significant press from the 60s and 70s-one article about corruption charges where he is mentioned by name 6 times. Others are passing mentions but a lot of them, mostly in the publisher's extra pages I don't have access too but it looks like content that could be pieced together to make a reasonably decent article. Not every article needs to have multiple full length books dedicated to the topic to be worthwhile, but I think the current article is more a G11 issue than AfD.SeraphWiki (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw that too and was thinking the same thing! On further investigation, though, it appeared to be a quote in the same AP story about a single trial. Because it was an AP story it was syndicated/reprinted by dozens of papers. And, unfortunately I don't think Mr. Zirin's 14-word quote about a criminal defendant in 1970 contributes to his own notability (though, perhaps, about the defendant). I agree that, if kept, this would be an exceptionally odd bio. It's unusual to have so little RS on the subject that we can't even reliably say what he was doing during the 43 year period between 1973 (when he was a junior prosecutor) and 2016 (when his book came out). Mr. Zirin is truly the J.D. Salinger of American jurisprudence! Chetsford (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

*Keep This article subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources which are currently found in the article. It should be pointed out that when this article was nominated it had only 7 references and the coverage on the subject has been increased to over 40 references which include New York Times, La Times, Forbes plus many others too numerous to mention here. Also, as stated there are several reviews about his books which are from reliable sources. Another editor mentions a lot of coverage on newspapers dot com from several decades ago. Remember sources only have to be available, not necessarily already placed in the article. This article with it wealth of sources passes WP:GNG and needs to be expanded not deleted. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt Terrible terrible article. It certainly does not pass WP:BIO WP:GNG. If it did, there would coverage.  scope_creep (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete with no prejudice against recreating the article in the future. Like Seraph, I find this borderline. He seems like someone who "should" be notable but the sources don't quite seem to get us there. &#32;DocumentError (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete For an article with so many claims to notability, there sure aren't many independent sources to back them up. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  21:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "over 40 references which include New York Times, La Times, Forbes"
 * Note that all of these are op-eds written by Jim Zirin himself. IOW, the NY Times, LA Times, and Forbes are not writing about Jim Zirin. Getting the NYT to publish your letters to the editor and op-eds doesn't meet the requirement of BLPS for sources WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject, as Chrissymad explained. Chetsford (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do not mis-represent the facts Chesterford. Thank you. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually there are 17 total, 15 are op-eds, 1 is a paid obituary and 1 is a paid marriage notice. Chetsford (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

There are 15 op-eds not 40 like you wrote previously. More importantly now there are even more references listed than before, the largest majority being from mainstream sources. I was wondering Chesterford do you have a COI regarding this matter? The reason I am so politely asking is that you seem to so adamantly object to anything at every juncture. It has even come to the point where you have marked a New York Times paid death notice as unreliable? You must be confusing the fact that a paid notice can, of course not be used to help with notability, but to call the New York Times unreliable? Maybe you need to step back from this article, and let the article and AFD be judged fairly by the community. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, that doesn't seem right. By my calculations we have 17, not 40. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. And that's okay! As for paid notices, please see WP:RS. Advertisements are not considered RS. A paid death notice is simply a classified ad that appears in the obits section of a newspaper. It is not subject to the editorial control of journalists. Chetsford (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

*Comment Gee, Chetsford, why can you not just admit your error? Bythebook librarian said 15 were op ed pieces, yet you keep saying the two other items are as well. The two paid notices are not op eds. I really think By the book gave you some good advice. You seem to have claimed WP:OWNERSHIP of the article, and most of the time will not let improvements stay in the article. Part of AFD is working to improve the article. On another topic, I would like to know the answer to the question you skipped above? It is an important issue to note. Simply do have a COI with this article subject, have you ever met him, do you know someone in the family? Is there any link to him, or maybe do you not like attorneys? Please just leave a simple yes or no answer. Because if you happen to say yes, your arguments here may be seen under a different light, and the closing admin has a right to know the information. Thank you. One other thing I have found a source about the books being on the bestsellers list. I am going to try and find one or two more then I will add that info back to the article. Lacypaperclip (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, hi, have you been involved with many afds involving an author as you are incorrect when you state "Book reviews don't establish the type of deep biographical information necessary for a BLP." and "Book reviews (can) establish the notability of books, not authors (see: WP:BKCRIT)." According to WP:NAUTHOR "3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work [an author's body of work are their books]. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." so with Zirin, Mother Court is held by around 290 libraries and Supremely Partisan 370 libraries, that could be deemed as "well-known" for these kinds of books, but what about reviews? well, Supremely Partisan (SP) has  a Kirkus starred review, you state "The claim that one of his books has received a Kirkus Star is unremarkable; Kirkus Reviews is a (partial) pay-for-play reviewer and 10% of their reviews receive a Kirkus Star. It's not the Nobel Prize or the Booker Award." is misleading as although this may be the case here (and with other of their recent reviews), as a book review magazine that is over 80 years old it is not necessarily true about all their reviews (but i digress:)). SP has also been reviewed in The Times here and The Spectator here Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries (Choice) here, The East Hampton Star here (may be deemed "too local"?),  and ABA Journal here, so meets WP:NBOOK; with Mother Court it has been reviewed by Choice, ForeWord Magazine Reviews, Library Journal here, The Providence Journal here (another local?:)), The Law Society Gazette here, The Times here, The New York Review of Books here, New York Law Journal here, Quest (lifestyle magazine) here, The Journal: of the Law Society of Scotland here, and The Economist here, it too meets nbook, so Zirrin has authored two books that are well known and have received multiple reviews meaning that he meets WP:AUTHOR and so is a Keep from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Great points and supporting arguements I agree with you and will duly update my !vote rationale and say this subject passes WP:AUTHOR and passes WP:GNG.   Bythebooklibrary (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:AUTHOR, the subject has created two works which have received significant critical attention. In addition, this encyclopedia article need not be long to be complete, neutral, and well-written, and subjects can be notable without all biographical details being substantially documented. However, it just so happens that Zirin has biographical entries in Who's Who in America 1994 (pg. 3781) and Who's Who in America 1998 (pg. 4785) which verify birth date, parents, academic career, and professional career up to 1997. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * weak delete surprising not more has been written about him ... I see the Who's Who but this appears to be a pay for play Who's Who scam version of Who's Who ... opposing proposal to salt Burley22 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the claim that being included in Marquis Who's Who is a "scam" is absurd, baseless, and borderline conspiracy theory territory. What 'scam' is involved in getting your biographical information in published books year after year? True, if self-nominated it doesn't prove notability on its own (this is explicitly noted in Notability_(people). But the Who's Who entries don't need to satisfy notability, Zirin's books do: read WP:AUTHOR. And there is no compelling reason to doubt the information therein, especially if it is not contradicted by other sources (and yes, even reliable sources may sometimes contain errors or contradict each other, but so what?). In an earlier time, many journalists and researchers would start with a Marquis book or other biographical directory. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think we can use a bunch of opinion pieces written by the subject of the article as reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject of the article. Without those, there's nothing substantial. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We are not using his opinion pieces to satisfy notability. Read WP:AUTHOR: "The person's work (or works) ... has won significant critical attention" Zirin has authored two books (The Mother Court and Supremely Partisan), which have received significant critical attention from independent sources. Zirin's work has undoubtedly been recognized. In addition to the reviews has listed above, Zirin's work has been reviewed by The New York Times (here), The Federalist (here), Above the Law ( here ), and Foreward Reviews (here). In addition to print, Zirin's work has been discussed on television: Here's Zirin on Morning Joe. Here's Zirin on C-SPAN. Here's Zirin on KTTV, Los Angeles. If someone is invited on air for national or major regional television, I think that indicates notability. Zirin's own syndicated talk show (Conversations In The Digital Age) appears in public television outlets in New York as well as Kentucky,, Texas, and possibly elsewhere.  From existing sources, Zirin's works have received attention in England and Scotland, as well as the United States.
 * And while Zirin's op-eds alone do not vouch for notability, the reception of such Op-Eds can. Zirin's essays have been cited in multiple books, and at least one essay has been reprinted in an anthology.
 * Lastly, I want to remind everyone that Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the present state of an article. A person need not be covered extensively since birth to meet notability criteria. WP:BASIC states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" For Zirin, we have two notable books, and sufficient verifiable biographical information to flesh out a short biography. An article need not be long to be notable. A concise biography of two or three paragraphs is probably all that is needed to neutrally and accurately assert what Zirin is known for. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete This article relies to heavily on works by the subject to pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Policy states that notable works establish the notability of a subject. He's an author so producing notable books establishes his notability. What would you have an author be notable for? And being an author is only one aspect of his notability.FloridaArmy (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be true if there were any other non-primary, run of the mill sources. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  23:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * what makes sources such as this New York Yimes Book review about his work run of the mill? FloridaArmy (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

*comment No, of it is not run of the mill! It is the new york times! lol. I would like to update my !vote, to add that due to Zirin's two notable books he passes WP:AUTHOR, since there has been critical discussion about him and the books in RS, and that, as well this article subject clearly passes WP:GNG for significant coverage over some 45 sources which are WP:RS. Also, please let me remind everybody, when this article was nominated there were only 7 citations in the article. I feel that with the help of several editors, we have greatly improved this article. Lurkers and commenters that have not placed a !vote and rationale yet, there is still time to do so if you wish. Pinging participants here who have only commented, but placed no !vote yet:, , If I missed anyone who has not voted, I am sorry! Also wanted to let every one know, I updated and added a new section for Philanthropy with multiple citations from The Associated Press and the New York Times. Please read over the article if you have not lately. Thanks. Lacypaperclip (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But the books aren't notable either; read the "articles"; they're just like the bio: trivial coverage like perfunctory reviews, so they don't pass WP:GNG either. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt; 16:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A 'No consensus' close would be possible at this stage, but I think it's worth relistin/g Hopefully a way can be found of parsing the nature of the sources presented, in an attempt to assess what weightj, if any, should be given them in establishing notability: Reliable and independent, or paid op-eds? That is your question.
 * Delete for lack of in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Same goes for the two stubs on his books, Supremely Partisan and The Mother Court.  Wikipedia's just being used to promote this man and his buyable work. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt; 16:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * keep a great deal of sourcing for the man, his career and his books exists. Article needs improvement, but coverage is there, going back years, with, but mostly without middle initial.  Suggest the use of keywords, I looked using the book titles (short versions, without subtitles) and book reviews, coverage of books NOT by Zirin, reported stuff and book reviews in major papers coma up.  I added a few of the book reviews.  Granted, page needs editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and  have ably outlined the guidelines-based rationale. His first book was reviewed by The Times (London), The New York Review of Books, The Times Literary Supplement, The New York Times, The Economist, and the Providence Journal. His second book was reviewed by The Sunday Times and The Spectator. These eight reviews alone meet WP:AUTHOR criterion #3 and then some. The subject is notable. Any other problems - autobiography and overuse of non-independent sources - can be dealt with by editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Sustained coverage of subject found. Article still needs improvement, but it satisfies WP:AUTHOR and passes WP:GNG as it now stands. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 11:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Er... wrong question. The fact that Zirin has penned op-eds and articles (some may have been paid placements - I don't know) is irrelevant, raised by some iVoters as a straw man.  The question for editors here is the usual question at AfD: Is there WP:SIGCOV in secondary WP:RSes?


 * Note I regularly edit AUTHOR AfDs.  In gauging the notability, writing a book that gets reviews published in multiple significant venues is seen as passing WP:AUTHOR # 3.  In addition  Zirin is frequently quoted in articles like Judges Playfully Dispute Whether New York’s Federal Court Is the Oldest (New York Times), and his personal life, career and philanthropy are reliably sourced MoMA’s Makeover Rethinks the Presentation of Art. Even the book parties introducing his books get coverage in mainstream media [Supreme expert], an article in The Times (of London) about a celebrity book party for Supremely Partisan held in 2016 at the Savoy Hotel.  Mirin passes WP:AUTHOR. Keep (as I wrote above).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That would apply if an author were being reviewed in general-audience publications, but that's not the case here. This is specialist writing reviewed in specialist publications that make a point of trying to review everything new that comes out in that field; it's trivial, rote coverage.  Whether an author is cited/quoted by others doesn't establish notability, or we'd have 100,000+ more articles on academics than we do.  Many people also make their living as "spokespeople" being quoted on things in the press (it's what gets them invited to be speakers at events for which they get paid, and so on). For example, I've been interviewed for publication many hundreds of times, been on various radio shows, interviewed on BBC News and other TV shows, presented at conferences, etc., but that doesn't make me notable, just competent at PR and media relations. Having had various op-eds published (BT;DT myself, too) also indicates competency as an essayist, not notability. I'm also a published author (Harper Collins, 1998) and have had articles written about me in highly topical, not general-audience, publications, and again I'm not notable. My book has been reviewed multiple times, again in highly specialized works for the most part, and is – guess what? – not notable. Zirin isn't special, he's just very self-promotional like all people in his line of work. This isn't really any different at all from a band that actually has an album that wasn't produced at home and has had some reviews in 'zines and (these days) websites devoted to their genre and some airtime on college radio.  If they're not covered  in general-audience publications, they're not notable.  Highly topically specialized publishing, especially that dedicated to churning out reviews, essentially fails WP:INDY because it lacks distance from the subject matter, and is highly, often entirely, dependent on the advertising dollars of the publishers the output of which they're reviewing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  23:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Reviews of his books have run in The Times (of London),  The Providence Journal, The Spectator, The New York Review of Books, The Economist, the New York Times,  and other mass-circulation, non-specialist publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This argument is attacking the (imagined/inferred) method by which Zirin's books became noticed, not the fact that they have achieved notice. If all media coverage were merely repackaged press releases, then a case might be made . --Animalparty! (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: If, as some arguing for deletion have suggested, Zirin's two books do not warrant notability due to perceived insufficient depth of coverage, a plausible compromise could be to merge the two books into this article, as again, WP:BASIC states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". It is clear that Zirin's writing is what he is most widely known for (here's a magazine article on Zirin's book release party). To be fair, based on presently existing sources I can't foresee either book article becoming much more than stubs while still meeting WP:NPOV, and even if they meet WP:GNG, consensus may determine they are better off presented in the author's article. I again remind all that the current state of this article does not impact notability. In my opinion it currently devotes too much text to trivial or affiliated sources, and could easily be consolidated by a third or more, but Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Zirin's books have received widespread secondary coverage in both general and specific reader sources. His biographical details are less widely covered, but verifiable due to reliable publication in Who's Who and New York Times. And even primary/affiliated sources, and those self-published by the subject can be used sparingly per WP:PRIMARY, WP:BIASED, WP:SELFSOURCE. Zirin is by no means the most notable lawyer or writer in New York, but from existing coverage, a policy-compliant article can be made that follows the core policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:BLP. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note to Closer Lacypaperclip and Bythebooklibrary have both been indeffed as sockpuppets. For ease of bookkeeping, I've taken the liberty of striking their comments as suggested by the essay WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Chetsford (talk) 03:47, 23 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.