Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitchell Muncy


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

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

not notable Soonersfan168 (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  --  At am a  頭  21:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  --  At am a  頭  21:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep - I will admit that notability is borderline with this subject. I initially became aware of Muncy when I first became involved with the Banned Books Week article where I helped resolve a dispute between two editors, then helped expand the article. Muncy was a person quoted in the article. I then looked further at his involvement as an editor and commentator, and thought an article was warranted (I think it was even suggested to me at one point during a discussion on the BBW talk page). I'm not strongly attached to the article's inclusion. I'll admit that I'm having difficulty finding more coverage of Muncy than what is already in the article. --  At am a  頭 21:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Thanks very much for the help Atama. As I understand it, the requirement for a person's notability is that he have multiple articles written about him&mdash;specifically about what he's notable for&mdash;by reliable 3rd party sources. In the case of Mitchell Muncy, we have only one such article. The pieces he has written in the WSJ and elsewhere might themselves serve as reliable 3rd party sources on some other topic, but simply having your writing published by the Gray Lady or The New Yorker wouldn't establish your notability. It seems that Muncy received attention for his piece in the WSJ concerning banned books week, but, unhappily for his notability, it didn't cause profiles of him to be written in newspapers or other reliable 3rd party sources. Quotation of him may very well be appropriate in the article on Banned Books Week, but, as we know, that doesn't make him notable. Soonersfan168 (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Benefit of the doubt.  Brief article with useful encyclopedic content.  wp:notability looks borderline. North8000 (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how he doesn't fail the notability test, since he lacks significant coverage in the news media. The requirement for WP:SIGCOV is more than one source that covers the subject itself, no?--in this case, there was an article written in a conservative publication (The Washington Times) about the conservative company he worked for that included information about him. That qualifies as a reliable 3rd party source I believe, but his other presence in media is as the author of an article or a guest on a show--both times he's talking about something or someone else--as I understand it, those kinds of appearances, especially if there are only 2 or 3, don't serve to establish notability. Atama notes that Muncy came to his attention because of his BBW op-ed in the Wall Street Journal--if an article or profile had been written about Muncy as a result of his op-ed, that would be one thing, but his notability as a commentator does not seem to have met that threshold, even though he wrote what may fairly be termed a "controversial" op-ed about BBW.
 * As for the encyclopedic content of the article, if it can't be demonstrated that he's notable vis-a-vis the BBW debate, I'm not sure what about being on the staff of a small, and apparently defunct, publishing company suggests inclusion in an encyclopedia? Soonersfan168  (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete I got in touch with Mitchell Muncy to see if he wanted the article removed, since according to WP:DPAFD his opinion is decisive if no consensus is reached. He has in fact requested deletion (ticket no. 2009111910057475) and says to me, "I would like very much to have the page deleted." Soonersfan168 (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Mitchel Muncy does not seem to fit the notability requirement. Perhaps he could be included in an article covering Banned Books Week. However, I do not believe he merits his own wikipedia page. Defensor1956 (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2011 (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.