Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Jacobs (journalist)


 * 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.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 20:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Samuel Jacobs (journalist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

All the sources seem to be routine name mentioning for job promotions. It's not like they are writing articles about this guy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I take issue with the over-generalization that All the sources seem to be routine name mentioning for job promotions. At least two sources seem to be completely independent of any association with Jacobs or PR releases. One is about Samuel Jacobs himself & the other is about the changing face of Time's editorial staff.
 * Peaceray (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Peaceray (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Peaceray (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to me notable, high management of Time (magazine). 2 independent sources. Grimes2 (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind me changing your voting format. The proper way to vote is to state "Keep" so the bots can pick it up correctly in the stats. Peter303x (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep significant news coverage exists and he is Deputy Director of Time, one of the most well known publications. Peter303x (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks depth necessary for inclusion. Not encyclopedic. Fails WP:BASIC in that most of the coverage is trivial industry rag type naval gazing. Jtbobwaysf Appears to have been created by a likely WP:SPA, probably a paid editor whose purpose is to create this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The creator of this article (in both English and French) has been confirmed as a sockpuppet. Kingsif (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I had a completely open mind until I read that this was created by a sockpuppet. On its own merits, I thought the page should have remained a draft for longer, as Jacobs appears to have a high position at Time & eventually might be noteable. But any actions of sockpuppets & potential unethical paid editing should be summarily deleted, reverted, or otherwise tossed on the ash heap. Peaceray (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. fr:Samuel Jacobs was deleted as Cross-wiki spam et faux-nez bloqué indéf [Cross-wiki spam and indef blocked sock puppet]. Peaceray (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:BASIC per sources provided by Grimes2. Additionally, I would consider his position at Time senior enough to pass criteria 1 of WP:JOURNALIST. In my view, the sock puppetry has unfairly prejudiced the delete voters at neutrally assessing the subject. 4meter4 (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it has multiple reliable sources, and he has a major position at Time. I don't consider the sockpuppet argument persuasive, since another editor made major edits to the article.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has significant coverage from multiple sources and the article seems to be neutral in point of view. I don't see how the sockpuppetry warrants deletion here. --Coolperson177 (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Several keep !votes seem to be under the impression that the article was nominated for deletion because of sockpuppetry and argue that this alone shouldn't warrant deletion; besides the fact that any article which has only been substantially edited by a blocked sockpuppet should be deleted, the article was nominated for deletion because of concerns about sources only discussing Jacobs as a passing mention, which is insufficient for GNG. This is what should be discussed in !votes, and the above comment mention of sockpuppetry was a neutral courtesy message for awareness, especially with a prior !vote accusing the creator of being paid SPA. Kingsif (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your analysis. I think we are arguing the subject meets NJOURNALIST and GNG and that the delete votes are using sock puppetry to ignore NJOURNALIST and GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that we would be remiss as Wikipedians if we ignored all the information to which we have access. Just as if you start an article for one reason & find an additional reason for the article, you do not ignore the second reason & only base the article on the first one.


 * That noted, I will reiterate that I have stated On its own merits, I thought the page should have remained a draft for longer. I think that Jacobs' senior position at Time is pretty thin for criteria 1 of WP:JOURNALIST. Perhaps the article can be returned to the Draft namespace until there is additional citations for notability, other than those that note position changes or are closely connected to the institutions with which Jacobs has an association. Peaceray (talk) 19:43, 27 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.