Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Gattuso


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

James Gattuso

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Bog-standard American 'policy wonk'. Other than churning out papers, no sign of significant impact nor coverage. CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: How exactly are his writings not significant? Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times are not exactly low impact publications. - Mgm|(talk) 09:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * His writings in themselves do not establish notability per WP:AUTHOR. Independent third-party coverage in reliable sources do. There are many newspaper and magazine columnists who would make it into Wikipedia because of the lack of coverage of them by others. Has he been cited in a reliable source (and not simply reprint his article)? Showing such a citation would definitely help establish him for WP:AUTHOR. B.Wind (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - policy wonk, to be sure, but for better or worse he's been asked to contribute on many occasions to discussions in major news outlets, being an expert (on what, I don't know) at a major think tank, the Heritage Foundation. J L G 4 1 0 4  02:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - google scholar shows that his papers are well cited. Seems to pass WP:ACADEMIC, if that's applicable. As an aside, I'm kind of shocked that there's no Policy wonk article. Pburka (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems notable per citations above. Hogvillian (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2009 (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.