Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conor Friedersdorf

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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Friedersdorf

[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)

This subject doesn't satisfy WP:BIO or general notability requirements. Eight of the nine citations are either primary sources or from blogs without a stated editorial policy. The citation from Nieman Lab is valid, but it is only referenced by one sentence in the article: "Friedersdorf compiles on a regular basis The Best of Journalism list, which is a curated list of news articles and investigative report, that he disseminates through a newsletter." When I searched Google I couldn't find any additional examples of discussion about this subject from reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability. Lonehexagon (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's summary of the Nieman Lab article is so wildly inaccurate that it calls not only WP:BEFORE but the good faith of this nomination into question.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've heard of him, and there's a decent amount of coverage of his writings, but I've been unable to find any biographical references that would justify a keep vote. I also don't see any list of contributors to The Atlantic that might be a merge target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "staff writer" at The Atlantic, one of America's leading magazines. Dozens of Wikipedia pages link to this longstanding albeit stubby page, a pretty good sign of notability. As is the fact that keying his name into a gScholar search shows that the article he writes are widely cited in books and scholarly journals. Articles he writes are widely discussed in other : 125 hits in a search for Friersdorf + Atlantic at National Review: [1]; [2]; [3], Here's a search of his name in the NYTimes listing 119 articles that discuss, feature or mention him: [4]. Moreover, his articles are cited and discussed in books and articles of his have been reprinted as chapters in books. and here: Liberal Distortion at The Atlantic, is Victor Davis Hanson attacking/engaging Friersdorf INDEPTH in what appears to be a part of a Davis Hanson v. Friedersdorf running battle. In sum, yes, article needs improvement (most Wikipedia articles do,) but this is a notable journalist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP and that the question at AfD is not, as Nom frames it, are sources presently on the page adequate, but, rather, is the subject notable?E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article has some persuasive sources, including Nieman Foundation for Journalism: How Conor Friedersdorf created a magazine-club experience through his “Best of Journalism list], and here: [5] is a search of his name on the Washington Post website showing that sundry pundits have been engaging with Friedersdorf's writing for years. Searching "Friedersdorf, conor" in gBooks [6] shows that his journalism is taken seriously and widely cited. There really does seem to be enough here to establish notability. As is true with most of our articles, this one could use improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No inherent notability for journalists and the sources - largely his own bylined articles - mostly only prove he is a living person. Proof of life is not proof of notability. Chetsford (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I hate the fact that we don't have a Special Notability Guideline for journalists. Carrite (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the sources in the article right now are not independent, but as E.M.Gregory pointed out, good sources do exist; I think it's clear that this article meets WP:GNG. It needs improvement, but deletion isn't cleanup.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:08, 5 November 2018 (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.