Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Spitz

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. The subject of the article, through the reviews of the books they've written, meet criterion three for creative individuals ("The person has created,…a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of…multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"). While the article in it's present state isn't great, that's not the discussion here. The consensus of the discussion here shows to me that the article needs improvement but has enough notability to be kept, so I am closing this as keep with cleanup required. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Spitz

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

With its likely copyvio photograph, this person doesn't seem to have been subject to significant coverage as an individual. His books may have (though it's not clear either...) but he's not, as far as I can tell. ╟─Treasury Tag►Alþingi─╢ 14:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Spitz is a music journalist that has contributed to major publications in the United States. Rolling Stone, Spin, The New York Times, etc. His biographies have been well reviewed and his new biography on Mick Jagger is likely to have huge coverage as it's a response to Keith Richard's autobiography, "Life" from 2010 and there was a very large printing (39,000+ copies). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connorrausny (talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has he been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 16:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Below are links to a collection of Marc Spitz's original articles in Vanity Fair and Spin as well as reviews on his latest book in The Telegraph and The Washington Post.

Vanity Fair archive
Spin Magazine archive
The Telegraph reviews Bowie by Marc Spitz
The Washington Post reviews Bowie by Marc Spitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connorrausny (talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are those articles about him? ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 16:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the last two, yes, of course they are. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely sure that they're not just reviews of his books that don't cover him as a person "directly and in detail" are you? ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 09:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Come on now, this guy is one of the most famous music journalists in the world. Don't want to assume that this is a bad faith nomination but it certainly seems that way. Needs sources, of course, lots of articles do. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So WP:ITSNOTABLE and (unjustified) WP:ADHOM then? ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 08:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Famous music journalist. will assume good faith for nomination.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IKNOWIT: if he's "famous" then you shouldn't have any difficulty in citing sources which discuss him directly and in detail, as is required. Please do so. And I resent the suggestion that I acted in bad faith (=why did you even bother to say that I was in good faith otherwise?) ╟─Treasury Tag►international waters─╢ 18:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Book reviews are perfectly adequate to demonstrate notability per WP:AUTHOR criterion 3. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2011 (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.