Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Nocera


 * 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) 🐱 12:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Joe Nocera

 * – ( View AfD View log )

promotional biography of a newspaper columnist, sourced to his own work. The purpose of his job is to give his opinions; the purpose of WP is not to repeat them.  DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: He meets WP:AUTHOR with 3 Gerald Loeb Awards and a Pulitzer Prize for Commentary finalist spot, among other national-level awards. At least some of his books look like they meet WP:NBOOK. No objection to heavy pruning. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 05:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * CommentAs with most awards, having a Pulitzer Prize is notable . Being merely a finalist for one is not. The Loeb awards are specialist awards for business journalism given in multiple categories, and therefore less important than thePulitzer Prize whcih represent the peak of the entire profession of journalism in the US. Previous practice at WP confirms it: Looking at he lists of award winners, I notice that only about 1/5 of the people listed have a WP article, and in almost all cases it's for other accomplishments, such as editor in chief of a major news service.
 * But I would not have noticed this article were it not almost all of the contents were long sections advocating his views, sourced to himself. It is, for example, not encyclopedic content that he supports fracking,  or to give a list of the universities whose athletic policies he has criticized. This is spam, and puffery to increase the number of links.  My decision whether to bother nominating borderline people for deletion is the degree of promotionalism  and puffery and over-coverage in the article. There are far too many articles in WP about people who really shouldn't behere to try to remove them all.  (If they are truly very notable it's another matter--then it can be enough to emove the promotionalism --unless the supporters refuse to let it get removed   DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: I agree with Hydronium~Hydroxide in keeping the article as Nocera has notable achievements but perhaps pruning it. I think points brought up by DGG should be addressed. Tale.Spin (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Prune the article for superfluous content, and what of encyclopedic value is left? Doesn't seem like much at all would be left. Regardless of whether or not the man is notable, is there anything of value to readers to say about him? The article reads like a list of tangential facts about the person rather than anything that distinguishes him. If it would not be acceptable to publish an article consisting only of some notable person's name and picture with a blank article, I presume It should not be acceptable to publish an article with a notable person's name and picture followed by a lot of unimportant or fluff content. 23:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC). (comment by User:Cameron Brow)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep First off, there are dead links and sources that are authored by the subject. Those need to be removed or reduced. Furthermore, there are reliable sources, independent of the subject that establishes notability, which includes the Pulitzer Prize nomination and the other award sources. The subject is clearly a highly respected figure in his industry. It should be a keep for now, but there should be more sources independent of the subject added later on. Multi7001 (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: This seems like an obvious keep to me. Nocera has been a noted writer and columnist for decades. He would probably be notable even if he'd only ever been editorial director at Fortune. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certain competitive awards are so notable that even being a finalist makes a subject notable. (The Oscars and Grammys come to mind). I would consider the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism in the same league. WP:ANYBIO includes nominations for this reason. Passes criteria 4c of WP:JOURNALIST per being selected as a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. 4meter4 (talk) 00:04, 4 October 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.