Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Noah


 * 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 speedy kept. This seems like it's being done to make a point (see Talk:Timothy Noah for context). Even if that was not the intent, this is not the best way to handle this particular issue; conducting an AfD on this article will create far more heat than light. Conduct further discussion as to notability on the talk page. JDoorjam    JDiscourse 23:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Noah

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:BIO -- Kendrick7talk 21:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Slate.com published an article today by Timothy Noah where he discusses his wikipedia entry, and wikipedia's notability guideline: here. This is a procedural nomination more than anything. -- Kendrick7talk 21:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Noah is a rather accomplished journalist, having worked for a number of major publications. However, the lack of sources is a problem that needs to be addressed. --The Way 21:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In the above-linked article, he makes a rather good case for his own non-notability (i.e., fails the primary guideline.) However, I abstain as I don't have time to research and verify that this is so. GassyGuy 22:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. should apply, even though seems most of his reviews are blogbased - and they usually don't agree with what he wrote. I did find a non-blog though by Stephen Schwartz, an author and journalist, the author of The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa'ud from Tradition to Terror. Noah does get quoted in mainstream articles like the Chicago Sun-Times Agathoclea 22:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know, that source appears to violate WP:V with articles like "Black Gang Bangers Destroy Vegas During NBA All-Star Weekend" and links to jihadwatch.org. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 22:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Response The article Stephen Schwartz (journalist) will give a bit of background on the political background of the reviewer. My view here is that if people feel strong enaugh to write an article about someone they oppose/don't like/disagree with - it has more clout than 100s of I write nice about you when you write nice about me. Anyway the magazine seems to get used a lot as reference to various statements of a number of journalists. See also contributor list Agathoclea 23:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak DeleteKeep:I was quite annoyed by his article (and even more by some of the comments people left about Wikipedia especially this one. He does meet my idea of notable, however, I can't find any non-blog reference that wasn't something he wrote except for this: but this is neither multiple nor non-trivial. Here is the Google search I used to try to exclude any of his articles and some blogs.  Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 22:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've changed my decision despite what WP:BIO and WP:N may say. Remember, "When in doubt, Ignore all rules." Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 23:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added a couple references and formatted the others. Nearly all of the information in the article is now verifiable in reliable sources. Noah writes regularly for Slate, among other major media outlets noted in the article. We really should work on not overusing notability as a criterion for deletion, especially when it's the sole criterion. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, but these sources only deal with the basic biographical facts in the lead section. The only sources for the rest of the article are his own articles. It appears that no one has written anything substantial about him. We don't have articles about every single columnist, why Noah? Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 22:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, his cleaning woman now has the same number of non-trivial, independent articles about her as he does. Recury 22:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But has his cleaning lady written numerous articles for non-trivial publications? · j e r s y k o <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 22:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said above "We don't have articles about every single columnist, why Noah?" Mr.Z-man  talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But is that a deletion criterion? That we don't have articles about every single columnist?  We do have several other columnist articles, fwiw (though I don't believe that's particularly relevant to this discussion). · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 23:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I hate to use the old argument of "way less notable articles are on wikipedia so this one should be kept" but it is valid in this case. Noah is a notable person with quite a few references. He writes for a varitey of sources and he has established himself in socitey. His personal thoughts and articles about Wikipedia should not even be in this discussion other than to point out his notability. The question of references has been addressed at this point so without a doubt his article should be kept. And maybe we should have a article about every national journlist.Trey 22:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should, but first, we have to get WP:N changed. Maybe a section for writers liek we have for porn stars? Mr.Z-man  talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> 22:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. The idea that Tim Noah would not be notable enough for Wikipedia is absurd, policy be damned. Bubble07 23:17, 24 February 2007 (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.