Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Yates Sexton


 * 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. Of note is that the nominator stated in the nomination, "I think this page should be merged, deleted, or further developed". As such, this is not a pure "delete" nomination from the start. The two delete !votes following the nomination state that the subject is non-notable in a rather generic manner, and in part based upon personal opinions, because they did not directly cite any specific notability guidelines. Furthermore, only one out of three delete !voters (including the nominator) checked back to the discussion to provide input about sources that were later presented. The keep !votes provide relatively solid evidence that the subject meets notability guidelines, but again, after sources were presented two out of three delete !voters did not come back to assess those sources. The same two out of three provided no input about sources added to the article as well, which occurred on 3 March 2022‎.

The two delete !votes following the nomination focus mostly upon the subject's internet posts, stating that such posts do not create notability, but do not provide much other qualification for deletion relative to notability guidelines, other than simply stating that the subject is not notable per their respective rationales, and neither opiner referred to any specific notability guideline.

Conversely, keep !voters here provided evidence and cited specific notability guidelines, such as WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV. North America1000 08:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Jared Yates Sexton

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

As has been outlined on the talk page by other users; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jared_Yates_Sexton several months ago. And I quote; Lets go through the criteria: The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. No unless I'm missing something? The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. No. (c) is the closest. Sure his books have been reviewed but I would say that constitutes critical attention of a standard sort. His works have not received more attention than usual or "significant" attention. Again tell me if I'm off here. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. 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. Perhaps you could say his coverage of the Presidency of Donald Trump would fit the mold of something notable he was involved with. Or you could say the 2016 United States presidential election was something notable he contributed to. But he certainly didn't play a "major" role in either of those. You could find hundreds of people who played a larger role in both of those. His name or coverage does not appear on either of those wiki pages. Finally, The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. This is the most difficult to parse. He doesn't have any successors yet so it would be peers. Do other authors cite his work? I don't see evidence of that in the References area of the article so at the very least that should be updated. In fact, regarding the references, there are only four out of nineteen which qualify as WP:SECONDARY sources: #'s 2, 7, 8 and 14. For 2, Barrelhouse is a quite small outlet. Not worthy of much weight. For 7, Bloomberg News qualifies as a reliable source but this is an opinion article, filed under their "turnabout" section. For 8, again, Mother Jones qualifies as a reliable source but using it for politics (as this does) requires attribution per WP:RSPSOURCES. Reference 14 is Deadspin which is not a reliable source. For all these reasons I think this page should be merged, deleted, or further developed. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics,  and Indiana.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable political journalist who got a little coverage for some social media posts he made, but nothing rising to the level to justify an encyclopedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no need to delete this page. Sexton is a notable author and commentator. The article has many sources. Could it be better? Of course. It should not be a candidate for deletion.Utahredrock (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk &#124; contribs) 02:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete A few viral tweets does not equal notability. Sexton's work is definitely not journalism, he is not independently investigating anything. His work is also not academic. He is simply a person with strong opinions. Also the authority control box still directs to the wrong Jared Sexton. Nweil (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, we do have several articles on people who were opinion columnists, so people do not need to be doing investigative journalism, or "journalism" per some definition, to be notable. However, they do need good quality sources about them which we seem to lack here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep His works have received "significant critical attention"; saying he hasn't received "more attention than usual" and therefore existing coverage doesn't count seems totally arbitrary and would make inclusion successively harder the later an entry appears in the encyclopedia. He's received attention from multiple independent sources, and that's significant per WP:SIGCOV. Moving on, the criteria is saying "the person has created...a significant or well-known work or body of work," not "must have played a major role in a significant historical event," as the nominator seems to be understanding it. No, he did not play a massive role in electing Trump or anything, but his work is itself "significant or well-known," based on the coverage of it, which treats it as such (even if you personally disagree). Yitz (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you believe the "significant work" you mention (I'm guessing the tweeting? Or his books? Please clarify since they are different) has 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.? Please cite. Nweil (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It has, see below. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I just added links to four high profile reviews of his books LA Times, NPR etc. They alone satisfy WP:AUTHOR as he has created a work that has multiple independent reviews (criteria 3). CT55555 (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no review in the LA Times. Nweil (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's here: https://www.latimes.com/books/la-ca-jc-review-jared-yates-sexton-man-they-wanted-20190620-story.html CT55555 (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Mild keep Has been reviewed in the Los Angeles Review of Books and has authored articles in the Globe and Mail among others, even if most of his "coverage" is hanging off Donald Trump's "fame" while in office. His book also has a review in the The Journal of Psychohistory,, via ProQuest. I think he's notable, that's 3 critical reviews, two in the LA book review and this one. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes the WP:AUTHOR bar: multiple reviews, including two for each of two books, indicating there's a body of work to write about. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK great, lets look at these reviews. So going book by book. Book: The People Are Going to Rise Like the Waters on Your Shore Article: written by Blake Morlock in LA Review of Books, published in October 20, 2017. So the writer here has only been published in LA Review of Books once, only for this specific review. Furthermore, I can't find any other book review from Mr. Morlock, ever. He seems to be a local news reporter in Tuscon. Also, digging more into the LA Review of Books, despite having a very lofty sounding name, it has only been in existence for 10 years. Wikipedia has a fairly extensive list of literary review periodicals and magazines at List of literary magazines, and LA Review of Books is nowhere to be found on that. Is this a serious operation? The magazine originated on Tumblr, which would obviously not meet our standard. It has since transitioned to online and print to be fair, but it's founder Tom Lutz described their strategy for growth as "we had to learn to insert ourselves into social media conversations" which is an odd thing for a book review periodical to be concerned about. And it casts some doubt in my mind about their intentions. Especially given that the Wikipedia article at hand (JY Sexton) has such a large social media following. Book: The Man They Wanted Me to Be Article: written by Nicholas Cannariato in NPR, published May 10, 2019. The tone of this review is very personal. In fact, the writer includes personal anecdotes about their own life rather than focusing on the book at hand. It's much more based on raw feelings rather than any academic interest or historical literary contextualizing. The writer is a self described freelance writer. It's unclear what editorial control was applied to this article, as NPR books does not have a masthead. NPR is not known as an outlet that reviews books, and similar to LA Review of Books, it does not appear on the Wikipedia list at List of literary magazines. It's difficult to take a previous commenter seriously when they described this review as "high profile". It's simply a freelance article, generated for NPR's engagement numbers. Essay: written by Harriet Fraad in the Journal for Psychohistory, published in Fall 2019. If you check the reliable sources noticeboard, there has already been a discussion of the reliablility of psychohistorians, such as Fraad. The verdict was that it's close to, if not completely over the line of, WP:FRINGE. A link to this essay by Fraad would be ill-advised. Book: American Rule Article: written by Paige Welsh in LA Review of Books, published September 27, 2020 The LA Review of Books masthead indicates that their politics editor is Tom Zoellner. Zoellner is a professor at Chapman University in the same department where the writer (Welsh) is a student, and in this case, submitted a politics-related book review even though none of her other available writings relate to politics or even book reviews. It seems clear that Zoeller encouraged or helped Welsh get published, or at least we can't discount that as a possibility. All of this, again, calls into questions the reliability of LA Review of Books as a serious publication for our purposes. If you look at the actual review from Welsh, it spends a significant amount of time chastising Sexton for a lack of "wokeness" asking why Native peoples were not featured more prominently. In fact, she counted the number of times a white man's name appeared in the book. What the review does not do is contextualize Sexton's book in the literary canon. Reading the review, you are left with no inkling of whether the work is significant in a literary sense or not. All this to say, these reviews are pretty lame and I strongly encourage the keep voters to rethink their position. Nweil (talk) 06:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Los Angeles Review of Books "only" reviewing books for 10 years doesn't seem like good reason to discredit them. I likewise consider NPR to be a very reliable source. I'd request if you quote me again, to please tag me so I can reply sooner. Also, I added a link to the LA Times review that you said didn't exist above. In summary I've done the rethink that you asked for and your research/analysis has not shifted my opinion. CT55555 (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment you forgot the essay in the peer-reviewed journal I cited above. It and the two "lame" reveiews as you call them seem to add up to notablity. He's also cited at least 3 times in this peer-reviewed journal from New Zealand,, as well as this theology journal, quoting several of his tweets, . Three or four others also use his writing to discuss various issues in psychology, theology and journalism in general. I would consider that at least a modicum of notability on which to base an article in Wikipedia? Oaktree b (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, we have enough to write an article about the effect he's had on society based on these peer-reviewed journals, "Jared Yates Sexton and Trumpism" or something similar. He's gained enough traction to have two articles in Wikipedia! Oaktree b (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - the reviews noted above all seem above board, the fact that the subject is frequently cited in media of various kinds and has been covered for his work all suggest that he's notable enough to remain. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:09, 12 March 2022 (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.