Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Mitchell (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 and I was going to close this as such earlier but I wasn't sure if it was clear enough (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  19:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan Mitchell
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:AUTHOR. No indication of importance nor wide citations by peers or successors. No new concepts, theories or techniques promoted. No significant or well known bodies of work (one book with little success at best) and no significant and substantive coverage otherwise - two single publication appearances (Newsweek and LA Magazine) do not constitute significant coverage. KrazyKlimber (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article provides sufficient evidence of notability (I doubt that WP:AUTHOR is the right criterion). Maproom (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The article clearly indicates that it's about a writer. Hence the criteria I used. KrazyKlimber (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It says "he writes as a hobby". That is not what he's notable for. Maproom (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the only option. He's not notable for anything else. KrazyKlimber (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant coverage in several major sources; also cited in several books on the subject . 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No notable cites from peers - except for Temple Grandin but only a name check and nothing more. KrazyKlimber (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's no question that Jonathan Mitchell is notable. The article currently cites six independent sources that establish his notability. There are undoubtedly more (e.g., ). CatPath (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Six?? There are only two that I can see (LA Magazine and Newsweek) and that is not enough to confer notability IMO. KrazyKlimber (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm including the NPR and Studio 360 interviews, Andrew Solomon's article in New York Magazine, and the book Autism and Representation. That's six total.  If you want more, he's mentioned in the article from Australia linked above in my initial comments, chapter 6 in the book The Politics of Autism, and chapter 3 of the book Republic of Outsiders.  (To confirm, you can find those books on Amazon, click on the "Look Inside" link, and search for Mitchell's name.) We're now up to nine independent sources.  CatPath (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The two interviews are not notable. NYMag is a name check. I'll have to look at the other one. The others are namechecks as well. You still haven't convinced me. He's actually closer to being notable for being a nuisance to the autistic community than anything else but even then he fails the test. All you're doing is presenting (IMO) local newspaper sources if you like. Where are the sources that detail him in the real mainstream beyond the two that I've already accepted? KrazyKlimber (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - The Newsweek and NPR references are significant coverage and both are reliable sources. This passes WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR does not even apply. I am also forced to point out the edit war and WP:POINT disruption here. There is a discussion at the COI noticeboard that talks about this more. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - The guy passes GNG and BLP given the good coverage. The article also appears to already be de-fringed, but a bit more may be in order. Delta13C (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly passes GNG, this looks like a case of IDONTLIKEIT. Jacona (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not clearly pass GNG, the only two articles from WP:RS are little more than fluff pieces. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - The cases presented above to keep seem to all check out. Lit1979 (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep How exactly does significant coverage in three major publications (Newsweek, LA Magazine, NPR) not constitute WP:BIO notability? WP:IDONTLIKEIT appears to be the operative link here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:19, 7 January 2016 (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.