Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey St. Clair (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Mkdw talk 01:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Jeffrey St. Clair
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no evidence of notability. The sources given as "references" are all by Jeffrey St. Clair, not about him, but there are several "external links", which should be considered as references. One of those is an archived copy of an advertisement for a recording of a speech by Jeffrey St. Clair; others are certainly not independent sources, namely pages at socialistworker.org, www.pressaction.com and www.lewrockwell.com; one is a mere listing of articles by Jeffrey St. Clair. The only independent source, a review at www.nytimes.com, is mainly a book by another author, and merely mentions a book by St. Clair in a few sentences. The article was previously discussed in April 2007 at Articles for deletion/Jeffrey St. Clair, where the reason for the nomination was that the article was completely unsourced, and the nominator withdrew when sources were provided. However, as I have indicated, those sources are not enough to show notability, and, whatever may have been the case six years ago, standards of sourcing are now much higher than those achieved in this article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. St. Clair is as notable as many other authors on wiki. I revisited the 2007 debate about deleting this article and was impressed by the following: "His book has been reviewed by the New York Times and he has written for Harper's Magazine, the Organic Consumers Association , and of course, a slew of left-wing magazines and sites (not added, he's pretty prolific, no reason to pick any specific articles) ... notable." These are pretty good credentials. I could find two dozen authors on wiki whose books have not made the NY Times or a magazine and prestigious as Harper's. And I'm mystified why an author who was notable in 2007 wouldn't be considered notable in 2013. Chisme (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "As notable as many other authors on wiki" is not a good argument, both because some other articles should be deleted (see WP:OTHERSTUFF), and because simply saying so, without saying what other authors, or what the evidence of notability is, is not helpful. Where his work has been published is irrelevant to Wikipedia's notability criteria, which are based on published coverage about him, not by him. Being "pretty prolific" is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines either, for the same reason. That leaves the mention of the review in the New York Times, which as I have said, merely mentions him in a couple of sentences. As for your being "mystified why an author who was notable in 2007 wouldn't be considered notable in 2013", I don't think that he satisfied the notability guidelines in 2007, and I think that the nominator was mistaken in withdrawing on the basis of inadequate sources being found. My remark that "whatever may have been the case six years ago, standards of sourcing are now much higher than those achieved in this article" was sort of giving the benefit of the doubt: I was saying, in effect, that, while I don't think that he satisfied the generally accepted standards then, even if he did he does not satisfy the generally accepted standards now. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something here? The guy is a columnist and editor at CounterPunch, a well-respected magazine. He co-authored several books (books published by reputable publishers) with the late Alexander Cockburn. He wrote a couple of books on his own. Objecting to his politics isn't a reason to remove the article about him. I object to his politics too, but he still deserves to be on wiki, I think. Chisme (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are "missing something". What you are missing is that Wikipedia's notability standards have nothing to do with how "well-respected" a magazine he writes for, or how many books he has co-authored. Maybe you disagree with the notability guidelines, in which case you are free to propose changing them. However, unless and until they are changed, he is not considered notable by Wikipedia standards unless there is substantial coverage of him in third party reliable sources, and so far nobody has shown that there is. As for "objecting to his politics isn't a reason to remove the article ", that is true but completely irrelevant, since nobody has suggested deleting the article for that reason. You say "I object to his politics too", as though you it goes without saying that I object to them, but in fact I don't, and, having carefully re-read what I have written, I can't see what on earth you think suggests that I do. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if writing columns for a well-respected magazine and writing books doesn't make you notable, what does? Maybe you don't understand what I mean by well-respected. The magazine St. Claire writes for isn't a throwaway. It has a long, storied history and is well read. His dozen or so books are not self-published or published by a little press. I still say keep. I don't know why you would need a "third party reliable source" to tell you the name of the magazine he writes for or the books he has published. Chisme (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, significant coverage amongst numerous secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you say "significant coverage amongst numerous secondary sources", but where are those secondary sources? Simply saying that they exist, without saying where, is not enough. The only independent source which has been presented in the article, in this discussion, or anywhere else as far as I know, is, as I have said, a review that briefly mentions one of his works in a few sentences, at the end of what is primarily a review of a different work by a different author. If there are other reliable independent sources then please present them, because they are not verifiable if we don't know what sources they are. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, Jeffrey St. Clair's work has been widely reviewed in numerous outlets. He has been interviewed widely as an environmental journalist. I will add sources to the page, which I believe will add more secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Counterp (talk • contribs) 21:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - "Somebody is challenging the notability of Jeffrey St. Clair?" I asked myself — "THAT Jeffrey St. Clair?!?!" Yep, so it seems. Once again we run into the dysfunctional aspect of GNG when it comes to biographies of journalists and editors. Publications do not write about people who write for their competitors; publications who write about their contributors are considered "self-sourced" according to a strict reading of GNG. So you have a situation where Alexander Cockburn's colleague at Counterpunch, a prolific writer of books and articles, a contributing editor at In These Times, is essentially unsourcable under the rules. This is a case for common sense, for application of the Wikipedia fundamental policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES. I have made similar arguments for other journalists before and I expect I shall again until we address this problem head-on with an RFC for a Special Notability Guideline for journalists and editors. Which we really do need to do. Don't overthink this one, this is a common sense keep in the face of inherent structural sourcing issues for an entire profession. Carrite (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable as an author -- his books are in hundreds of libraries -- over 400 for  Five days that shook the world . (& his book on Gore has bee reviewed by the TLS.)  And I agree with Carrite that our notability requirements for journalists and allied professions need rethinking., for the reason given.&#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2013 (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.