Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Kaiman

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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Kaiman

[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 article has remained essentially unchanged for more than two years, and I believe it runs afoul of WP:BLP1E. Searching the Internet provides practically nothing unrelated to the sexual misconduct allegations. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:BLP, and WP:TNT. This person exists, and has a few thousand followers, but is as of 2022 a law student, not even admitted to the bar, thus failing my standards as well. There's no evidence at all that he passes WP:CREATIVE as a writer. The biggest chunk of this page chiefly concerns a one-time sex scandal in which he was involved, and for which he was neither charged nor indicted, creating a serious BLP issue here (if he'd been indicted, it would be another story). The page appears to have been edited in such a way as to make it incomprehensible. I'm not apologizing for sexual harassment, I just think that sadly, it's so common as to be run of the mill. This page is not even a stub, but a hot mess. Finally, it's a problem because a potentially notable person, who is entirely innocent, shares the same name. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only thing I could find with a Google search from before the accusations that was actually about the journalist was this, which I don't believe constitutes significant coverage. Hatman31 (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been updated, so there isn't much to the argument that it is "essentially unchanged for more than two years", which is a specious argument for deletion, anyway. It does not run afoul of BLP:1E because the article includes 9 sources which stand by themselves and have nothing to do with any one supposed BLP:1E. Someone above objects to this wiki entry by saying "The biggest chunk of this page chiefly concerns a one-time sex scandal", which is entirely untrue: the main body of the article is 240 words; of these, only 62 have anything to do with any sex scandals of any sort; i.e., 75% of the article is pure biography unrelated to the supposed "sex scandal". A further argument is that someone else shares the last name? What kind of AFD argument is that?. Finally, someone googled and found one article from before the "scandal." Congratulations. Did anybody notice that the article includes numerous sources also from before any scandal allegations? For example, the fellow wrote for Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Guardian," The Atlantic and Foreign Policy years prior; he was a Fulbright Scholar (no mean feat), a Foreign Press Center Japan fellow, and he was recognized by the Pulitzer Center. Seriously, how many people are even remotely close to claiming such a trifecta? Then you have National Public Radio claiming in its own voice that Kaiman was "Granted Rare Access To Pyongyang Celebration." How can people claim with a straight face this doesn't meet WP:GNG? XavierItzm (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being a journalist doesn't automatically confer notability. Looking at the sources individually:
1. Pulitzer Center - Essentially a directory listing that says he resigned because of sexual misconduct allegations.
2. The Atlantic - Another directory listing from a site he worked at, doesn't confer notability.
3. Foreign Policy - An article written by Kaiman, which does nothing to confer notability.
4. Reason - Another article written by Kaiman.
5. The Hudson School - Another directory listing, this time of alumni.
6. LA Times - Another directory listing for a paper he worked at.
7. NPR - An interview with Kaiman about North Korea. Not a profile or detailed coverage of Kaiman himself.
8. Reason again - Coverage of the sexual misconduct allegations.
9. Foreign Press Center Japan - A very brief piece about a weeklong visit to Japan. Again, no profile or details about Kaiman himself outside of places he visited.
10. LinkedIn - A social media page of his. No notability conferred.
11. Deadline - Coverage of the sexual misconduct allegations.
12. New York Times - Coverage of the sexual misconduct allegations.
13. Commentary - Coverage of the sexual misconduct allegations, but only briefly at the beginning. The article is more about his accuser and sexual misconduct allegations in general.
14. South China Morning Post - Coverage of the sexual misconduct allegations.
15. Slate - Coverage of the sexual misconduct allegations.
16. Reason again - Another directory listing for a site he worked at.
To reiterate, the only coverage that is not directory listings or about things he himself wrote or covered is related to the sexual misconduct allegations. A big list of references might seem impressive at a glance, but there's nothing there. This article only exists because of the allegations, and Kaiman is not notable for anything outside of them. There were never any sort of legal proceedings or attempts at proof related to these accusations, which potentially creates WP:BLPCRIME issues as well. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice goalpost moving. Keen observers will notice the original AfD complaint never mentioned WP:GNG. Not to mention the mischaracterization of of sources: the Pulitzer Center citation for example, is far from having arisen from any 2018 allegations, unless one thinks the Pulitzer Center gave Kaiman his recognition following the allegations! But no: as can plainly be seen here at the Pulitzer Center, Pulitzer awarded Kaiman before August 14, 2017, before any allegations. Has the Pulitzer Center updated the bio on their awardee following the "allegations"? Sure, why not?, they want to maintain the Pulitzer Community biographies up-to-date, but it is a sad mischaracterization of the source to disregard the Pulitzer source as having arisen from the "sexual misconduct" issue as implied in the list above. The same could be argued with regard to much of the list of sources presented. Sad. But the fact remains: the individual has been covered by the WP:RS from both before and after the allegations. XavierItzm (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never implied that Pulitzer source existed because of the allegations. My point is simply that is it is a tiny paragraph, in other words, little more than a directory listing. I have not mentioned WP:GNG because it's not the key issue this case. GNG presumes, but does not guarantee, notability if certain criteria are met. The problem with the significant coverage in this case is that it is all related to the sexual misconduct allegations. As I already showed above, the sources fall into three categories: trivial mentions, including directory listings from places he has written for (7), sources from Kaiman himself (3), and articles about the allegations (6). None of those confer notability outside of the WP:BLP1E concern. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can only hope that the closer will be able to see through the mischaracterisations. It is argued that "never implied that Pulitzer source existed because of the allegations" but in fact it was said that it was "Essentially a directory listing that says he resigned because of sexual misconduct allegations", when in fact it is a short bio of one of only a few handfuls of people ever recognised by the Pulitzer in this capacity, that just happens to note one among several facts of life of the awardee. So, two mischaracterisations:
*(1) an implication that the bio entry was caused by a 1E; and
*(2) that the bio entry is a list (in fact, it is not a list in any way, it is a short bio).
The same holds true for many of the above list of references and the way they have been mischaracterised, but hopefully this gives a taste of the situation. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to add more, as I've made my points, but I'd suggest you take a look at WP:AGF for future reference. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per XavierItzm (talk · contribs) sources. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the cogent source analysis by Torchiest. Subject fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLP1E. None of the sources prior to the sex scandal are usable towards notability because they are either not in-depth or they are connected to a publication or institution for which the subject worked or was a grant recipient, and therefore lack independence (including the Pulitzer Center source). The only sources which address the subject directly and in-depth and which are independent have to deal with the sex scandal, thereby making this topic a candidate for deletion under BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a mid level journalist that did naughty stuff, quit his job then went to law school. Nothing terribly notable about much of any of it. It would almost be better if we put a few words in the article about the LA Times (I think it was), he resigned when he was bureau chief there over the stuff that he did. Oaktree b (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The scope and breadth of the reliable and verifiable sources provided regarding the article's subject demonstrates that the notability standard has been satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 19:59, 20 June 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.