Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Holthaus

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Holthaus[edit]

[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)

There is no clear claim of notability. Article says he has a weather service and he writes stuff, but no indication the service, or his writings are successful or significant. Rob (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there's one thing I wish everyone bringing up an AfD would remember is that per our Deletion Guidelines, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." This means that even if the article is lacking info or citations or a clear claim of notability, that proves nothing b/c notability is tied in with the subject, not the article. The subject of this article has a ton of coverage of his career, including profiles and coverage in Rolling Stone (Meet Eric Holthaus, the Rebel Nerd of Meteorology), Columbia Journalism Review (Eric Holthaus on how meteorology can support journalism), Business Insider, and other places. He's also quoted and/or interviewed as a climate change expert in a number of articles, such as by Vice, Canary Media, CNBC, Science Friday, and Reuters. In addition, his writings have been reviewed in Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, Undark, America Magazine, and many more places (and that's not even including other articles that reference his books, such as this Publishers Weekly article). Finally, a direct search on his name in the Wikipedia LIbrary turns up 629 articles and references, which is good proof that his work is being cited and mentioned by others. All of that means the subject easily meets the notability guidelines for people.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to pass GNG even with the sources in the article, rest above are gravy. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep since the nomination doesn't give a valid rationale for deletion. SmartSE (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I agree with Smartse that this nomination is premised on invalid ground. Aside that (serious deficiency) the assertion that no "clear claim of notability" exists in the article is itself wrong! The Article's inclusion of reliable secondary sources that verify the subject's notability is, in itself, a credible claim of significance and constitutes an additional major flaw with this nomination. The third strike (and, perhaps, the most untenable) was the nominator's lack of due diligence wp:before the nomination which self-evidently was not performed (the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is too readily available and easily found to conclude otherwise).--John Cline (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2022 (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.