Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Singal (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Jesse_Singal
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

This biographical page was previously deleted due to not meeting notability requirements Articles for deletion/Jesse Singal In the interspersing time the subject does not appear to have gained notability, going from being a Senior Editor in NYMag, to self published.

A claim to notability is a book he published, however a search of bestseller lists shows the book did not reach them and holds about 100,000# in book sales ranking with Bookmarks noting it had a tepid reception. . I worry that if we gave the 100,000th top book a page, we would have to give every obscure book ranking better a page as well.

The final claim to his notability is that he was involved in a journalism controversy during 2018 which CJR briefly summarized here. However it appears to have died down and he has no longer obtained publications on the subject making it appear to be a case of wp:BIO1E.

To conclude I don’t see what has changed from last time which held an overwhelming consensus for delete apart from a decline in the subjects publication prominence and a wp:BIO1E event that died down. Apart from a brief critical mention in CJR I do not see WP:SIGCOV that could meet WP:BASIC Freepsbane (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * As an addendum I am concerned that most of the article is wp:BIO1E with the remaining segments dedicated to his podcast and obscure book when neither are notable. If we give everyone who gets a page a large promotional section to their book, even if it was not commercially successful or notable in reception, then surely every self published author would be clamoring for a page where they can advertise their books at Wikipedia. At the very least the book section reads like vanity advertising for an obscure product and should be trimmed. To a lesser extent the section on his podcast/self publishing career is needless promotion as well, it does little but cite self published and primary sources often by authors connected to the subject. Again it concerns me that if we are too permissive with promotion, every marginally notable blogger will be getting Wikipedia puff pieces on their obscure books and blogs. Freepsbane (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would encourage all parties involved in this current iteration of the article   and the editors from Articles for deletion/Jesse Singal    to contribute their wisdom to this discussion. Apologies if my grammar is poor my friends, English is not my first language.Freepsbane (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. wp:BIO1E does not really apply here. There is RS coverage spanning 4 years and several areas. Much of the information mentioned in the nomination (e.g. the sales figures and reception of his book) are irrelevant to WP:N. The article that was deleted in 2017 was a single ten-word sentence, so the concerns raised in that deletion discussion don't have a lot of applicability here. Also, while not a reason to keep per se, it's worth noting the article is currently linked from 17 other mainspace pages. Colin M (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, his previously deleted article was not ten sentences, it was essentially this but without the wp:BIO1E. Indeed in some ways it compared favorably as it did not have large sections dedicated to book promotion. I ask,  can you establish he meets wp:BASIC?  His book was what you held as entitling him to an article however it’s very obscure and instead of qualifying him it is receiving promotion. Is it his publication prominence as muckrack says he’s had almost zero articles published in the last two years? Or is it merely a few primary sources from a wp:BIO1E that died down. If the later is all we have then our article is possibly less viable than last times. Also many of those 17 sources you note are self published (his own blog has to provide biographical detail as he is too obscure for a paper of record the podcast source is a link to his Patreon), and the remainder by authors who say they have social ties to him(Walker is said to be in arguments with him, Gillespie who wrote a promotional piece was according to muckrack his Reason editor). They are primary sources and often part of the story.Freepsbane (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:BIO1E is about whether a person deserves an article separate from some other notable event, which doesn't apply here. Between commentary on the Atlantic article, commentary on his writing, and reviews of his book, WP:GNG is met. An AfD from years ago on a much shorter article and book sales numbers are irrelevant. There is no need to worry about some sort of precedent being set when we already have GNG and the like to guide us. Crossroads -talk- 04:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect I don’t see how WP:GNG is met, Criterion one falls so short Singal’s biography and self published sites have to makeup much of the article, the controversy articles describe that single event but little else. Criterion 3 and 5 is failed, we lack secondary sources and worse yet, many are not independent either from people who are related to his disputes, or his editor from Reason. What we have to build from is either limited to the incident or self published or not independent. It does not seem a foundation for an article.Freepsbane (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. - per reasons already stated above by crossroads and Colin M -Pengortm (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be grateful if you could enlighten me as to what writing? Muckrack shows minimal publications in the last two years. As for the book, which reviews? There are many non notable books with mixed reviews out there. And most sold much better. In fact, many best seller list books did not get a Wikipedia page? Should give them one?Freepsbane (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is not about Singal's book. Whether the book is notable is irrelevant. Colin M (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Is he notable then? He has minimal publications and no notability that could meet wp:BASIC. Even his biography has to quote his own websites.Freepsbane (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe he is. That's why I !voted "keep". Colin M (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you believe that is good, if you can give examples that is even better. Instead of taking it on faith, tell us how he is notable? I can’t see signs of any publication notability, and the book is not notable, so surely it must be more than the primary sources from one event.Freepsbane (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 05:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 05:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 05:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Abstain / comment: as I said on the talk page last month, the article is very borderline. I looked last year for sources to see if I could create an article, and didn't find enough that I felt the notability guidelines were met. Even now, after someone else did create the article, a fifth of its (limited) references being Singal himself is not great, and it puts a cap on how detailed the article is able to be, but I've seen other articles at about this level judged to meet GNG, so... -sche (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The subject has established notability and significant coverage is cited and there is more coverage found in the search engines. However, no honorary mentions or awards in mass media, nor any demonstration of impact and major contributions to his industry. Multi7001 (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: he has a popular podcast, has bylined in several major publications, and has a book out. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt: This is an article that keeps coming back, and while it comes back different every time it also lends itself to the suspicion that there may be other factors at play here (such as the fan base) trying to get an article for the author here. Taken by the skeletal frame of the article GNG is not met, there are references to freelance journalism but nothing that anchors him as a journalist, a podcast that is well short of record setting or ground breaking, and a book that has yet to show any meaningful impact on himself or the subject area. I think it toosoon for an article, but I would prefer since this has been CSD'd and AFD'd repeatedly to have a future version reviewed by unbiased eyes and moved out to the main space when he is firmly anchored as notable and meets the criteria for inclusion. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR as he has significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Additionally, the idea that this is a fan page is somewhat ridiculous as a significant portion of the article is devoted to criticism of the subject by LBTQ publications and activists for his perceived transphobia.4meter4 (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article has issues, but the sources indicate that the subject meets WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: While the article could probably use some consolidation to achieve a more encyclopedic tone, Singal and/or his works have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. To add to sources already in the article, consider:
 * (+ The Gist podcast coverage)
 * This list intentionally does not include any of several gossipy one-off bits offering no more than recaps or hot takes of individual tweets or twitter spats involving Singal, which can also be found by simple Google Search. Between trans writing, a book, and a podcast, notability is sufficiently demonstrated. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (+ The Gist podcast coverage)
 * This list intentionally does not include any of several gossipy one-off bits offering no more than recaps or hot takes of individual tweets or twitter spats involving Singal, which can also be found by simple Google Search. Between trans writing, a book, and a podcast, notability is sufficiently demonstrated. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This list intentionally does not include any of several gossipy one-off bits offering no more than recaps or hot takes of individual tweets or twitter spats involving Singal, which can also be found by simple Google Search. Between trans writing, a book, and a podcast, notability is sufficiently demonstrated. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2021 (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.