Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Singal


 * 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 13:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Jesse Singal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was prodded by User:SamHolt6 and later by User:BigHaz, the first time it was decline by User:Ethanbas because 'seems like he's written many articles for several notable media organizations'. A merger is proposed, but there is nothing to merge. The subject seems to fail WP:NBIO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 09:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge with article on New York (magazine) - this article is a single-sentence ten-word article, and the only reference given  is to the subject's own website. Vorbee (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't merge. It just makes it harder new & inexperienced users to start pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per my earlier Prod (apologies it was placed there in semi-error - Twinkle used to notice, I'm sure of it). If there's nothing to merge, there's no reason to merge it, and there's no way that's a standalone article about a standalone subject. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Whether we keep it or not, it is likely to exist again soon.  Not because of COI, but simply because Singal is a hot journalist with a major book coming out from Farrar, Straus and Giroux.  Several of his articles in recent years have caused a significant stir, and there was attention paid when he was harassed on twitter and closed his account.  Probably gets more writing done that way.  Somebody could probably source this now, but, if not, somebody will do so after that book comes out.  And there should be no prejudice against the new article merely because someone started a one sentence stub that got deleted.  Me, I think writers who have the self-restraint NOT to come here and start a page on themselves should get extra credit.  Maybe a tag that would put a blue ribbon for good behavior at the top of any page about a contemporary writer  page with no COI.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If the potentially-recreated article meets GNG, and certainly I suspect it would do based on what you're saying here, there's unlikely to be any such prejudice, I would have thought. Certainly there wouldn't be from me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Define "hot journalist" and "major book"? It would be nice to have words that clearly mean something rather than a string of superlatives as a justification. Going by alexa, there's plenty of NYT and other authors who get more hits. Going by NYmag contributing writer importance, there are far more established senior writer and editors in more prestigious papers. Will we give every buzzfeed contributor a bio here to? You could also argue they're hot journalists and I bet several also have books. You seem to talk about prizes and "blue ribbons" and know a lot about his personal life, I'd say you should step back and not let your personal friendships color what's done here.Freepsbane (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Strong delete We cannot have an article just based on a self-written employer bio.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * note that Steven Lubet discusses Singal's investigative reporting on sourcing used in Alice Goffman's controversial 2014 book On the Run in his (Lubet's) new book Interrogating Ethnography: Why Evidence Matters.  In a major article about On the Run, Singal fact checks Goffman's sources, praising her book, with reservations about some failures of verification.  I wonder if it would be just as well to keep this and revisit.  (does anyone else here feel dissed that neither  Singal or his publicist have dropped by to add a few sources,  as most authors and publicists seem to do?)  I'll try to make time after the holidays to give Lubet a careful read and expand this article with that material.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:HEY I did a small expand, source. It satisfies User:Johnpacklambert's objection.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Nearly all the references are from a website the subject has. Being mentioned in one or two papers written by friends hardly meets notability criteria. There are hundreds of thousands of other not very notable contributing writers out there with a few shout outs from other news article. I don't see why Mr.Singal would stand out above them. There are far more important science writers like tenured professors with dozens of high impact papers and many citations and they aren't covered here due to being insufficiently notable. Same for more influential, higher ranking science writers in more notable papers like the NYT. This seems like gift article, written by friends. That isn't how we should do things here, unless we want to make this a case of favoritism, we'd have to let every other contributing writer with one or two shout outs get a page if their friends gift them one. Freepsbane (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As an observation, it seems the article is full of weasel words like "innovative", "novel" and "nuanced" about his writing. I see more praise heaped on him in this article than scientists who are in the short list for the nobel prize thanks to their genuinely novel work, like Jeffrey I. Gordon. Truly strange and fancruftie that we'd devote nearly as much article space and twice the praise on a rather minor author. It's common for friends to try and "gift" Wikipedia articles, this seems to be the case. Certainly a bad justification.Freepsbane (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 02:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ! dave  14:19, 26 December 2017 (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.