Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Mandel


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 09:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Seth Mandel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO this article looks rather UPEish. The Sources are too weak to show notability on an author basis. 1: press release 2: Alumni page so affiliated 3: A quote from the subject without commentry 4: A social media site 5: a selection of his tweets in a list of 25 people 6: an WP:INTERVIEW so not useful to show notability 7: an article written by the subject about his wife giving birth in their car 8: a human interest piece about his wife giving birth in a car Dom from Paris (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. EAWH (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC) I created the page because I thought being named editor of the Washington Examiner made this subject pass WP:AUTHOR as "an important figure." WP:INTERVIEW DOES NOT say that interviews cannot be used to show notability, but rather that the type of interview matters.  I believe that being the subject of a full interview on NPR's Morning Edition because NPR thought this person's opinion would be of interest to their listeners, would help in showing notability.  (I included the story about the childbirth in a car only because it was included in his wife's Wikipedia page) I have followed this person's writing with some interest, although I have never met him.  I was certainly not paid to write this page.  EAWH (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)  I have also added a link to a New York Times article to the page in which he is listed as one of three Right-Wing writers recommended to their readers. EAWH (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For an interview to be useful for notability it has to contain independent commentary about the person have been prepared and talk about them. This is absolutely not the case, if you read the transcript you will see that it is just a request for comment on another subject. The NPR interview is not about the subject but about Trump, the only mention of the subject in the interview is "GREEN: Seth Mandel is an op-ed columnist for the New York Post. And he joined us from our New York studios. Seth, thanks for the time.". This is most certainly not indepth coverage of the subject in an independent secondary source as is required for notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, WP:INTERVIEW states, "interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability...Interviews show a wide range of attention being given to the subject and should be weighted accordingly. Elements of interviews include selecting the subject, contacting the subject, preparation of questions, and writing supplemental material such as a biography." This is an interview on Morning Edition, a national prime-time radio news program with millions of listeners.  The interviewer is clearly familiar with Mandel's previous writings on the topic.  As such, a full interview on this program devoted to asking Mandel about his views does contribute to establishing Mandel's notability.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EAWH (talk • contribs) 17:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if conceivably this interview could help towards notability it would have to be in-depth coverage of the person that is discussed in the interview to count towards notability of that person as per the guidelines and not this essay. My point is that the piece talks about Trump and not Mandel so it can't possibly be considered in-depth coverage of Mandel. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We know your stance. No need to continually WP:BLUDGEON the page. You have made 8 of the 16 edits on this page, which includes bots. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  18:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. His position seems to indicate notability. Atbannett (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you just clarify that your !vote is based on his job and not the sources? Dom from Paris (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Although some sources you could argue are only a mention due to who his wife is, I believe there is enough sourcing to fulfill WP:GNG. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you mind saying which of the sources you consider are in-depth coverage in secondary sources? --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * is an article in Rutger's alumni news. It is localized but still independent and I see no reason why it would not be a WP:RS. has him as more than a passing mention.  focuses on both him and his wife, with arguably more of a focus on him. Would be the ones in the article, which I feel is enough. -  Galatz גאליץ  שיחה Talk  13:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * He is a graduate of the university so I don't think it can be seen as independent, an alumni paper is by definition affiliated to its alumni. This source is in actual fact coursework for the journalism school and as it says on its "about us page" AlumKnights magazine is created as a part of the Rutgers University course Media Publishing and Design. Approximately 20 students take the course each year. To complete the course, each student writes several drafts of an article about the Journalism and Media Studies Department, and learns how to use Adobe InDesign, Adobe Photoshop and WordPress.. It is not what I would call a reliable independent secondary source as it only concentrates on subjects affiliated to itself. The paste article is not indepth he is listed as one of 25 conservatives who don't like Trump and tweet about it and the baby born in a car story is quite trivial. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Mandel has had more than enough coverage to pass notability.   Mandel's job changes, marriage, and more to the point, his writing gets covered in articles like:  The Hill, CNN’s Stelter, New York Post’s Mandel clash over de Blasio; Vox "Mandel, in his Atlantic piece, argued that", and many similar.  Notable journalist, conservative pundit, and editor.  and Note that the question at AfD is not what's already on the page, but what coverage exists.  Nom's assertion that so page is inadequate  is not an argument WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2018 (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.