Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Norton

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. RL0919 (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Norton

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article subject does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or WP:JOURNALISM. Coverage appears to be brief mentions such as this Derek Ford book and this WaPo article, and/or non-independent, such as this Max Blumenthal book (Max Blumenthal is the article subject's co-host). Most of the links in the article are written by the subject himself, but I can find no in-depth, independent, secondary reliable sources written about the subject. Note recent discussion at WP:BLPN#Ben Norton. – Levivich 04:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources in the article seem to independently pass WP:GNG, and though my before search was cursory, didn't see anything which suggested he would pass WP:NAUTHOR, either. Willing to reconsider if sources or book reviews are shown, or, in the alternative, if someone can prove he passes WP:NFOOTY. the last part of that sentence is an in-joke with the nominator, who I frequently disagree with over at the sport AfD lounge. SportingFlyer T·C 04:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we should not be sourcing articles to a writers own works and bios published by their employers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with comments above. I do not see any significant coverage by independent sources. The few brief mentions in the secondary source articles do show sufficient notability. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a major journalist.Strandvue (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of substantive independent sources. Guy (help!) 12:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem that I see is there's lots of writing by him, but not about him. He seems to change jobs a lot. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.