Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Pincus-Roth (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.  Sandstein  11:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Zachary Pincus-Roth
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable journo. While there is a lot of sources there are no independent reliable sources that have any depth of coverage about him. The awards are not major. Notability (journalists) is a failed proposal so should not be used. His citation numbers are trivial. Last afd was tainted by a bad faithed nomination and sock puppetry. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  Jim  Car  ter  11:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Jim  Car  ter  11:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The finding from the previous nomination discussion was accurate. What makes you think that his citation numbers are "trivial"? They were not trivial a year ago and have only increased since then. This entry does have room for improvement (citation formatting is the first thing I see) but this clearly meets standards for notability. Bangabandhu (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to hide anything about authoring the article. I don't have any conflict of interest. Bangabandhu (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Following the scholar link above we can see that his highest cited work Avenue Q has bee cited 3 times. Trivial. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Google scholar is primarily for academic or scholarly works and isn't a fair measure for a journalist, especially not an entertainment journalist. Washington Post authors on popular topics like Pat Goss, Rachel Elson, Steven Goff or even Donna Britt don't have ANY scholar citations, but we wouldn't question their notability. Those journos, like Pincus-Roth, are well represented in a Google search or a news search and are notable. Bangabandhu (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And it was you that linked to google scholar to claim he was widely cited . Trying to have it both ways? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As a journalist he's got a lot of citations, but as an author, he has one book. To clarify (in case there's a 3rd nomination?), here's a screenshot from the second page of his Google Scholar citations. Google Scholar focuses on aggregating citations for books, not newspaper articles, but you can see his writing is widely cited, even if Google News would be a better way to demonstrate this. Now, if you want to take out that he's an author from the lede, I think that's reasonable and would support the change. But there shouldn't be any question about his notability. Bangabandhu (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: appears to meet WP:JOURNALIST based on positions held, scope of work, and authorship of Avenue Q. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What positions held satisfy WP:JOURNALIST? What is special about the scope of his work? How hoes authorship of a non notable unviewed book help? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Leaning Keep -- I don't see what has changed since the last AfD, where the article was kept. The tone is somewhat neutral, and the subject appears notable, per positions held and awards received. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What positions held? Good jobs but nothing notable. What awards? None are major. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:06, 10 October 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.