Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Batstone

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. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Batstone

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

Fails notability guidelines in WP:AUTHOR and also does not seem to be a notable academic. Kelly ^hi! 13:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are some issues with the article's use of sources but still seems enough to establish notability. Also a widely-published author, journalist, etc. 169.231.4.229 (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as per WP:GNG. The. Sources. Are. Out. There. They. Just. Are. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not equal notability. Do any of them show this person meets WP:AUTHOR, i.e. "he person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" or any of the other criteria? Kelly ^hi! 17:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KeepSeems to me that several book authors consider him notable enough to write about him. He has also had a fair number of profiles in the media, and is semi-regularly cited as a source in international media. In my view, that suggests that he is notable. JMWt (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain as Books, News, Highbeam and Newspapers Archive all found some links including suggesting he is mostly best known for that Not for Sale group so this would have to be improved to be accepted. Notifying DGG who may have some insight with this. SwisterTwister talk 08:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unambiguously notable as an author -- see list of books in WorldCat [1] -- note the very high library holdings-- over 1200 for Not for sale, 000 for saving the corporate soul. Tho not a formal criterion, it indicate widespread public interest and the certainty of multiple significant review. The article does need rewriting to remove some puffery. But there's enough content to escape G11. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 18 November 2015 (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.