Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Barro

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I initially wrote a rationale for a "delete" close of this article. But after rereading comments by those posted, the consensus states that while many of the various mentions of Barro, such as in TIME's 140 list and Forbes' 30 under 30 subcategorisation, do not by themselves constitute "substantial depth of coverage", the number of them in aggregate support a case for inclusion per WP:BASIC. Valid arguments were also made for inclusion under WP:CREATIVE, and while no single point clearly applies, enough of them (1, 3, 5) partially apply. LFaraone 02:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Barro[edit]

Josh Barro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's a conspicuous lack of anything approaching the depth of coverage normally needed for a biography. An article by the subject himself doesn't count, and neither does a blurb written by his employer. Nor, for that matter, does an editorial that mentions him in passing. Finally, placing 103rd in a list of the 140 best Twitter feeds of 2012, according to one man's opinion, also proves nothing in terms of encyclopedic notability.

Is there any evidence that Barro has been, per WP:BASIC, "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? - Biruitorul Talk 14:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You disparage the Atlantic article and the Twitter list, but what is it about them that is not "reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? Are they not reliable? Are they not intellectually independent of each other? Are they not independent of Barro?

I also disagree that the Atlantic article mentions him "in passing". The whole article is a summary of the ideas of Barro and a few others, attributed to them. DB Durham NC (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not "disparaging" anything, but merely asserting that those links do nothing in terms of demonstrating notability. The Atlantic piece is an editorial; WP:NEWSORG discourages use of such. An opinion piece about the opinion of another opinion writer is not a meaningful form of coverage for our purposes. And let's not inflate Barro's contribution: trillion dollar coin makes no mention of him, and rightly so.
  • The fact that a tech blogger happened to name someone 103rd tweeter of the year, and proceed to write two lines about him, in no way demonstrates that individual's notability.
  • Let's look at WP:GNG as well: it mandates "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Where is the significant coverage? Where are the "sources that address the subject directly in detail"? - Biruitorul Talk 16:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is notoriously hard to find sources for journalists, since material is apt either to be by their employers (thus not counting to GNG) or non-existent (since other media outlets do not write about their competitors). This is an important writer for Bloomberg, it would seem, who has appeared as an expert guest on the Bill Maher show. It would seem that there SHOULD be a Wikipedia article about him. No time to hunt for sources now, but there is a big web footprint and I have a hunch sourcing is out there if sought actively enough. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One additional candidate for "significant coverage" is Josh' presence on Forbes' 30 Under 30 list in 2012. Josh's work regularly receives praise from other notable bloggers with wikipedia entries, e.g. Marginal Revolution,Brad DeLong, Matt Yglesias, etc., though admittedly such citations do not map neatly into wikipedia's notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.DeRemer (talk • contribs) 18:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Fores list. Biruitorul refers to Barro "placing 103rd in a list of the 140 best Twitter feeds". Not so. If you review the citation with care, you'll find that the list is not ranked. The full list is here, and you'll see that Barro appears in the section labeled "Politics" between Michael Beschloss and Marco Rubio. Pretty good company, no? As for authorship, Adam Sorensen wrote the one-sentence description for Barro, but the list was compiled by "TIME Staff". Not by "a tech blogger" as is said above. How was it compiled? "After consulting with TIME editors in every field from politics and sports to technology and entertainment, we’ve compiled a list of Twitter feeds that stand out for their humor, knowledge and personality. It’s not comprehensive—there are more deserving tweeters than we can tally, and all honorees from previous years have been excluded...." So it's published under the TIME imprimatur and reflects the judgment of the staff and Barro is one of ten under the Politics heading. I'd call that notable. And this should have been noted by anyone reviewing the entry for notability before proposing the entry for deletion.
I don't know if Barro is sufficiently notable for a WP entry, but I'd like to see sources evaluated with care. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Making a name for oneself on Twitter is not prima facie evidence of notability, even if one happens to be placed alongside 139 other individuals by a magazine, some of whom are notable for other activities (Beschloss and Rubio, for instance), others of whom are equally lacking in notability (Nick Confessore, Andrew Kaczynski). - Biruitorul Talk 20:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And your mischaracterization of the sources cited in the first place? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And who made you my interrogator? Comment on content, not on the contributor. - Biruitorul Talk 20:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bmclaughlin9 is completely right about your mischaracterization of sources - that is clearly a comment on the content of your post, not a comment on the contributor. Barro's being selected out of millions of Twitter feeds, by a venerable, highly respected, traditional magazine as one of 10 top political Tweeters, is certainly notable - as is Nick Confessore, by the way, who is a Pulitzer Prize winner among other things. Tvoz/talk 08:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added another independent source attesting notability (explicitly!). DB Durham NC (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • A blog post arguing against deletion of a Wikipedia article hardly attests anything. Let's not descend into the farcical here. - Biruitorul Talk 20:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an independent source. It addresses the subject in detail. What more do you want? DB Durham NC (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ever read WP:BLOGS? - Biruitorul Talk 20:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." Barro himself approvingly tweeted a link to this blog post, so I think we have met the "use them with caution" requirement - no fact-checking concerns here. I have added an attribution as recommended by the verifiability page. Good enough? DB Durham NC (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm afraid you're grasping at straws. A blogger proclaiming a Tweeter to be "extremely notable", and the latter endorsing the blog post, in no way amounts to significant coverage in reliable sources, even if the former happens to be paid by salon.com. How about some sources with distance between subject and writer, with at least a pretense of objectivity, with peer review, with depth of coverage? - Biruitorul Talk 21:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Leonard and Barro have never met, so I don't know how much more "distance" you could have. And can you specify what it is in the article that's not objective? Also, can you tell me what kind of peer review and depth of coverage are required? DB Durham NC (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • You might wish to have another look at WP:RS, in particular phrases such as "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and let that sink in before you continue advocating we use a blog post as evidence for someone's notability. You might also want to check some of the references in the list of GAs on journalists I assembled above. There aren't many citations to blog posts taking sides in a Wikipedia deletion discussion, I would venture to guess. - Biruitorul Talk 02:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm confused. Is a Salon blog not a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Does the passage I quoted from WP:BLOGS not apply here? And can you address the questions about distance, objectivity, peer review and depth of coverage I asked above? DB Durham NC (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to plop a link to this salon.com article here. I'm not going to weigh in on the debate, though, because it feels meatpuppety. - Richfife (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I'm also going to encourage Andrew Leonard (I know you're reading this) to read up on Passive-aggressive behavior. - Richfife (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, I would like to inform Mr. Leonard that I am pursuing this discussion because I believe Mr. Barro fails the notability threshold set by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Sorry to burst his bubble, but this is not "a prank", and I have no "political vendetta" against Barro. - Biruitorul Talk 02:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no particular dog in this fight, but I was aware of Barro's work prior to Leonard's article and as a long-time Wikipedia editor I think it is flat-out ridiculous to consider deleting this article. To the deletionists, find another target. This one is a no-brainer: keep it. Arjuna (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deletionist, not deletionists. There's only one. DB Durham NC (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thus far, there is only one user forthrightly calling for deletion, but I refuse to be labeled a "deletionist" simply because I wish to flush out of this encyclopedia a bit of senseless trivia. Anyway, Arjuna, you may wish to adduce some policy-based arguments in support of retaining the article. Asserting that a deletion proposal is "flat-out ridiculous" can never substitute for a convincing demonstration of how an individual meets relevant notability policies, as established through material that meets WP:RS requirements. - Biruitorul Talk 02:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Let's be objective here. The man is not notable. If he was, the article would be filled with much more content instead of being a two-sentence stub. If there was more notable information to add, then I would wait and see until someone could come up with a decent claim to notability. But after Google testing and researching about the subject, there doesn't seem to be any information that is worthy to be included in the encyclopedia. The subject is also pretty much an orphan, being wikilinked in only two other articles (One of which is Robert Barro, the subject's father]]. In fact, the footnote that explains who Josh Barro is in Robert Barro's page could be expanded to include the information said here. You could call this a Merge vote, but the fact is, the article is not notable and doesn't belong on the encyclopedia. Perhaps Josh Barro will gain notability in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we have to deal with what we have. I vote to Delete it, or at the very least, to Merge these two sentences into Robert Barro's footnote. Feedback ☎ 04:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Arjuna. This is a classic stub: "an article containing only one or a few sentences of text that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and that is capable of expansion." There are sources and basic facts about a journalist who has attracted the attention of a major news source, Time magazine, for one. This is why we have the concept of "stub" - yes, it needs expansion, but it certainly should not be deleted. The energy being expended here to delete this stub would be better applied to improving and expanding the piece, and ignoring the peanut gallery off-Wiki, rather than posturing for it. Tvoz/talk 08:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless someone is inherently notable (like, say, Pablo Buitrago y Benavent), a stub that is AfD'd can remain in place only if notability is demonstrated during the AfD discussion at the very least. That has yet to happen. I will now address three specific matters. First, attention from Time may prove notability, but it's not a given; it depends on the context of that attention. Giving Barro two lines of coverage alongside 139 other individuals, many or even most of whom are decidedly not notable, says nothing about his own notability. You added the Forbes source, but the problem is the same. The coverage is not in-depth, and while some of the people in their list are notable (Abby Huntsman, Chris Hughes), most are not - meaning inclusion in the list is not a particularly good metric of notability. Finally, you added a blog post (yes, Mediaite is a blog) - again, see WP:BLOGS for that.
      • Professional blogs like Mediaite or Andrew Leonard's blog at Salon can be acceptable sources for Wikipedia. DB Durham NC (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nice sleight of hand there, but simply decreeing something a "professional blog" does not make it acceptable under WP:NEWSBLOG, which refers to things like this or this. And even if the two aforementioned blogs did fall under that narrow exception to the prohibition on citing blogs, they would still not prove anything about Barro's notability. One of them merely mentions he made a talk show appearance (which does not equate with notability), and the other, well, we've been through this before. It's absurd to be citing a blog post taking sides in a Wikipedia discussion - and then distorting the source to claim it asserts that Barro "has been described by others as conservative, liberal and libertarian" when it does no such thing. This project is supposed to be a work of scholarship citing peer-reviewed material, not an amalgamation of random blog posts. - Biruitorul Talk 16:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your standards are higher than those listed in WP:NEWSBLOG, and they are impossible to meet. I give up. DB Durham NC (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Excuse me, I'm distorting the source? No, I don't think so. Quoting from Leonard with emphasis added in case you missed it the first time: "He is, in my opinion, a rare breed indeed: an intellectually honest analyst of political and economic affairs who makes up his own mind, does not hew to any preset ideology and relies on facts to makes his arguments. People who disagree with him have labeled him conservative, liberal and libertarian. That’s not easy to achieve!". That is what I paraphrased and cited to Leonard. Yes, I would like to get the primary sources that label him in these different ways, but that's again the benefit of being a stub - this is a new piece, and it needs time to flesh it out. Using secondary sources is totally acceptable, certainly as a stop-gap. Put on a "ref improve" tag if you like, but don't characterize a legitmate quote as a distortion. If you are more comfortable with going back to having Leonard's name in the article, and identifying that quote as his opinion (see WP:NEWSORG), I'd be ok with that - I just thought it read better the way I edited it. Referring to pieces on Salon as "blog posts" totally misunderstands its standing as a reputable online magazine of almost 20 years duration. There are staff writers (such as Leonard), editorial oversight and standards. Try submitting something to Salon, and you'll see. And you know that the blogs that we are cautioned against overwhelmingly are personal, self-published blogs, not those published as news sites, and in any case, Leonard's piece is an article in their Tech area, not a blog post of any kind. As for Mediaite, it also is in no sense a personal, self-published blog - it also has acceptance standards and oversight, and while not as strong a source as Salon, it is being used here solely as outside verification of the subject's appearance on a major, notable, national cable tv program. You seem to have your own internal barometer of who is notable and who is not (I notice you didn't reply about your incorrect assertion of non-notability regarding Pulitzer Prize winning Nick Confessore) and what source is acceptable and what not. I respectfully suggest that you take a step back, Biruitorul, and let's see how the community actually feels, rather than dominating this discussion but ignoring valid arguments, and attacking other commenters by accusing them of distortion. Tvoz/talk 18:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And look, I'm not being obtuse here. I realize many people have heard of Barro. I've heard of him myself, months ago, and much of what he says strikes me as sensible. I realize he has a certain level of popularity or even notoriety. However, being at that level and satisfying WP:GNG are two different matters; since he doesn't satisfy it, his biography has no business being in an encyclopedia. - Biruitorul Talk 13:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would say that Barro qualifies under WP:CREATIVE criteria 1: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and criteria 2: "The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications." There are now three independent sources of his peers listing Barro as a notable center-right journalist on the page. This combined with the precedence for having articles for other similarly notable political bloggers with similar sources for notability (e.g. Reihan Salam, Yuval Levin, Megan McArdle, Matthew Yglesias, Digby (blogger), Ramesh Ponnuru etc.) seems to argue either in favor of keeping the page on Barro or deleting many of those other pages. I guess it all depends on how narrowly you define "widely cited" which seems to be an inherently subjective distinction. mcd51 (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Barro has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of him. This is the standard set in WP:GNG. There are comments above trying to create a higher standard for inclusion as a stand-alone article, but one does not have to be the subject of a cover story in People (magazine) in order to warrant one's own entry in Wikipedia. DB Durham NC (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC) — DB Durham NC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Lacks the significant coverage that is required by the GNG, and the general notability required by WP:CREATIVE. The nomination is correct that the sources presented only contain passing mentions of him; there is no in depth coverage of him shown. The lone exception is an article about this very Wikipedia entry, which was written as an explicit attempt not to get this deleted. This man's influence within his field at the current time isn't strong enough to evidence permanent notability and, with that, an encyclopedia article. ThemFromSpace 21:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing in WP:GNG that says coverage doesn't count if it mentions Wikipedia. This is what I mean when I say people are trying to create a higher standard for inclusion than exists in WP:GNG. DB Durham NC (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think for the purposes of this debate, you should visualize the text of the salon article with a "keep" in front of it as if it were posted right here. That is, ultimately, what it is. - Richfife (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Salon article is significant coverage in a reliable source that is independent of the subject. For purposes of this debate, that's very different from something posted here. DB Durham NC (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important comment on WP:GNG- Most of you above have been asserting the subject's notability because of "significant coverage" in three sources. You fail to realize that "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes only a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion.". According to WP:GNG and WP:NOPAGE, it's up to us to decide if the coverage is enough for the subject to warrant a stand-alone article. And frankly, just read the article. There is nothing here that warrants its own article space in the encyclopedia. The article states (1) He works for Bloomberg, (2) He has a lot of followers on Twitter, (3) Both Forbes and David Brooks see potential in him, (4) He's a Republican/Libertarian, (5) He studied at Harvard, (6) He lives in Queens, and (7) He's Robert Barro's son. Does any of that assert notability? Not really. I think (1), (3) and (7) are enough to get him a mention in Robert Barro's article, while (2), (5) and (6) are trivial and unneeded. Feedback ☎ 23:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you at least get the facts right? No one has said here or in the article that he is notable because he has a lot of followers on Twitter. That is utterly incorrect. Time magazine selected him as one of the top 140 Twitter feeds of the year - one of 10 in politics. That confers notability. As does the Forbes selection and the Brooks comment. Trivializing this discussion by pretending anyone thinks where he lives is what makes him notable makes me wonder about motivation -did someone make that claim? And I assume you are not suggesting that the "trivial" biographical information about who his father is, where he studied, etc be removed from his bio? Because if so, you have a whole lot of work ahead of you in purging the thousands of bios here of such "trivial" information. And finally, as I have said, this is a stub, not a fully formed article. The whole point of a stub is that it needs to be fleshed out - we have demonstrated basic notability in the stub, and certainly need to expand it and add more and better sourcing. But to claim no notability because the "article" is not full is absurd.Tvoz/talk 01:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either you didn't fully read my statement, or you purposely sensationalized it to avoid a rational discussion. I never said his relationship to his father was trivial, in fact, I argued that it had a place in the encyclopedia (in Robert Barro). And the reason I said where he studied is trivial in this discussion was because of WP:DEGREE. I also never said that I was voting to delete it because the article isn't full. In my original "Delete" vote, I wrote that had their been significant coverage, I would have voted a Keep. But after doing my own research, I could only find WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE ("Merely being mentioned in a source whose primary purpose is to cover an entirely different subject does not necessarily satisfy this guideline."). The reason the article isn't "full" is because there is nothing to fill it with. The subject just isn't notable. Feedback ☎ 01:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's notable because he is an interesting person who writes and says things that people talk about. I've added a citation that is an example of this. DB Durham NC (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, there are plenty of "interesting people" who write and make people talk. If you are arguing that this is enough for someone to get an article on Wikipedia, then by all means, you are expanding the scope of Wikipedia exponentially! Feedback ☎ 01:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase. He's an interesting person who writes and says things that people talk about and he has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of him. DB Durham NC (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 9 references listed in this article, 2 of them are about Josh Barro. The first is a primary from Bloomberg, and the second is an article about this very AFD. The other 7 references are discussions about some important and definitely notable topics, of which Josh Barro had an opinion on. His comments are addressed in the articles, which is definitely an achievement for a blogger, but not enough to be considered notable for Wikipedia. People don't inherit the notability of the topics they speak about. For example, we here at AFD speak about plenty of notable topics every day. That doesn't make any of us any more notable. Josh is a blogger who talks about important subjects, but he hasn't accomplished anything of note and the article doesn't belong on the encyclopedia. However, a footnote at Robert Barro is definitely suitable concerning the circumstances. Feedback ☎ 01:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I have noted before, there's nothing in WP:GNG that says a source doesn't count if it's an article about this AFD. And I agree that writing about notable topics doesn't make you notable, but what Barro has done is not just write about notable topics, but have other writers in independent, reliable sources write about his writing about those topics. That's different, isn't it? On the issues of whether (1) being named a top Twitter feed by Time, (2) being named to Forbes' 30 under 30 list, or (3) being invited to participate as a panelist on Real Time with Bill Maher constitute accomplishments of note, I hope we can agree to disagree. I don't think it makes sense to keep Barro only as a footnote on his father's page; his accomplishments are independent of his father. DB Durham NC (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Salon article is pretty much just a very loud "Keep" vote, it hardly establishes notability. Your comments about Barro's writing are basically instances of WP:TALENT, while your comment about him making the Twitter list is an instance of WP:FAME. Also, not everyone who has appeared on Real Time has a Wikipedia article. One TV appearance does not an article make. (See WP:ONEEVENT). And you're right about his accomplishments being independent of his father, that's because notability isn't inheritable (in the same way he doesn't inherit the notability of the topics he writes about). And as of now, you have yet to provide a reliable source that "writes about his writing" without it being an instance of WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE. But that isn't your fault, as I can't find one either. The fact is, you're basically arguing with yourself every time you say significant coverage would make him notable. He doesn't have any. So by your own definition, he isn't notable. You're being guilty of WP:ANTECEDENT. Feedback ☎ 04:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would dispute the allegation that the reliable sources that "write about his writing" are all instances of TRIVIALCOVERAGE. This notability guideline, "doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention." In each of the contested articles, the purpose of the article is to list a number of notable political commentators. While these references are short (around one sentence long each) I would say they are central to the purpose of the articles, not trivial side references. At the very least, I'd argue that this criteria is much more subjective than is being acknowledged, and these articles shouldn't be dismissed out of hand from this discussion. Finally, the purpose of TRIVCOV is to avoid original research, and I don't see anyone arguing that this article is violating WP:NOR, though I would welcome the discussion. mcd51 (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although you are correct that a purpose of WP:TRIVCOV is to avoid OR, it's not it's only purpose. It's main purpose is to make sure all participants in AFD to abide by WP:N, and it explicitly states that "The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view." Do you believe there is enough content to write articles from a NPOV? As of right now, it reads more like the introduction to his curriculum vitae with such trivial information as his academic and job histories spiced up with some minor online accolades. There is no content that asserts notability. Not in the article and not in the references. Feedback ☎ 07:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason I think the Josh Barro is notable is that he is the lead opinion blogger for prominent news source Bloomberg L.P., as it says right there in the lead. His notability is supported by the several other independent sources in the citations that list Barro as a notable opinion writer. In this regard, it appears that Barro is similar to other prominent opinion bloggers who already have Wikipedia pages, such as Matthew Yglesias, Alex Pareene, Ramesh Ponnuru, Megan McArdle, Digby (blogger) and Ta-Nehisi Coates, all of whom are notable primarily for being opinion bloggers. Should these pages all be deleted too for being non-notable?mcd51 (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To this list I would add William Saletan, Farhad Manjoo, Reihan Salam and Conor Friedersdorf. I cannot see a reason they would be considered notable if Barro is not. DB Durham NC (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If someone tried to create a Wikipedia article about me, for example, and it went to AFD, nobody at Salon would care to write about it. Salon wrote about Josh Barro's Wikipedia article because Josh Barro is notable. The Salon post counts for a lot more than just a "very loud keep vote". The GNG says so! I don't understand why your other Wiki links are relevant, especially WP:ONEEVENT (Barro has been on TV dozens of times and his articles have been discussed in independent reliable sources probably even more often) and WP:NOTINHERIT (Nobody said his father makes him notable). Trivial coverage? The Salon article is not trivial, and neither is this (part 1) (part 2). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DB Durham NC (talk • contribs) 10:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You assert that Andrew Leonard writing about Josh Barro is evidence of his notability. However, Andrew Leonard is just a fan who thinks he's talented. It has no effect on notability. Andrew Leonard himself has been a political commentator over 10 years and has even coined phrases that have their own encyclopedic entries. And yet, he doesn't have his own Wikipedia entry. That's because although Andrew Leonard may participate in topics that are notable, that doesn't mean he is notable. Same thing goes for Josh. Listen, you're just refusing to get the point. You're fitting most of the examples of WP:ATA and you continue trying to come up with some sort of argument. Obviously, you created the article and won't be convinced of its failure to meet WP:N. I think it's rather pointless that I continue debating this with you. Feedback ☎ 18:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDHT is relevant in a situation where consensus exists. You can't possibly be asserting that any consensus exists here, can you? I also highly doubt that a quantitative analysis would conclude I am fitting "most" examples in WP:ATA. Which ones am I fitting? DB Durham NC (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I meant to link to WP:Subjective importance, not WP:ATA. You can review above which parts I feel you linked to. And the consensus I feel you're not listening to is the GNG in WP:N. Josh Barro, just like Andrew Leonard, have contributed to notable topics like You didn't build that and Open-source journalism, but they are not notable themselves. Feedback ☎ 19:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TALENT is about comments on AFD pages. It does not apply to Andrew Leonard's Salon article, which is an independent reliable source, not an AFD comment. DB Durham NC (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"And the consensus I feel you're not listening to is the GNG in WP:N" This sentence doesn't make any sense. DB Durham NC (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GNG like all guidelines is a result of community consensus. You ignored it when you wrote the article, and you mischaracterize it every time you call "Josh Barro" notable. As for WP:TALENT, the same principle still applies. You're using a prime example of "Subjective importance" to assert notability. Feedback ☎ 03:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but WP:IDHT refers to consensus on the AFD page. That does not exist. As for WP:TALENT, are you really asserting that a comment in AFD and an article in Salon carry the same weight? Really? Talent "means nothing in the way of notability unless it gets published". It was published! in Salon! Sorry to be a broken record, but Barro has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of him. There's nothing subjective about that. DB Durham NC (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Borderline notability at best. Give it time, but right now this article seems to almost be attempting to make the figure more than he really is. Even with nine sources the article still reads like a review page and not an encyclopedic entry.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to article on his father. He does not need a seperate article at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Keep I'm an inclusionist, so I think there's little benefit from deleting what may well develop into a decent article. Still, to be fair, there's little evidence of potential to grow beyond Stub class any time soon. I just can't find very much reputable information about the man. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 23:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Barro appears to have received the coverage required per GNG, and, unlike the many pop culture biographies, is likely to remain relevant beyond the common 15 minutes of fame. --Trödel 17:52, 1 April 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Josh_Barro&oldid=1137958148"