Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Klein (editor)

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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Klein (editor)[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)

Non notable journalist failing WP:JOURNALIST and lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I tagged this for notability as I felt the paper being (controversially) notable, the exec editor should have more RS that could meet GNG; however, I am surprised as how little RS there still is on this BLP subject. Britishfinance (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Holds notable job. Added some sources. He was only made Executive Editor 12 months ago, but here's search on: "philip Klein" "executive editor" [1]. Looks notable to me.NotButtigieg (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these sources are a full profile or interview on Philip Klein from a quality WP:RS that would give WP:SIGCOV - that is really what we need, otherwise we are at WP:TOOSOON. Britishfinance (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Examiner Ups Philip Klein To Managing Editor [2].NotButtigieg (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that is a press release from his employer, The Washington Examiner, relayed through The Daily Caller, which is not an RS. You need some kind of interview/profile piece on the subject is a normal independent good quality RS. We don't have that as yet, and thus this is a likely Delete. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

take a look at the other sources I added to what was, admittedly, a new, poorly sourced, page.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out that Klein's notability comes from editing an impactful political mag. I may not like his POV, but I do think the impact of the magazine he edits connotes notability. NotButtigieg (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to point out that Klein's notability can be measured in the seriousness and frequency with which his opinions are cited - by both right and left.
- - James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal: "One could say the same of Romney's 2012 flattery of Trump... Trump's shortcomings were far from obscure back then, as the Washington Examiner's Philip Klein wrote on Feb. 2, 2012: 'Today's embrace of Donald Trump is a colossal blunder that will come back to haunt him...'"
  - Ross Douthat in the New York Times: "The list of plausible conservative health care alternatives now literally fills a book — “Overcoming Obamacare,” from The Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein, which any G.O.P. presidential contender would do well to at least pretend to have read."
  - Look for yourself Politico [3]; Washington Post: [4]. My argument is that he is a serious, if minor, political player.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So just a few from WaPo, the sort of the stuff that I mean:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s false accusation of a misquote [5]
"Conservative writer Philip Klein is out with a new book in which he discusses this quandary and what Republicans should do about it." [6]
"Philip Klein argues that Iraq produced the Affordable-Care Act — thanks to Iraq, Democrats took over Congress in 2006 and the White House in ..." [7]
"As Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner dryly noted, Warren could just as well have written that Mexico was going to pay for her big, beautiful plan." [8]
"On Tuesday night, as Donald Trump effectively locked up the Republican presidential nomination, Philip Klein left the party." [Ryan’s resistance to Trump may offer Republicans a life raft].NotButtigieg (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And just a little of the stuff that Politico has published about him:

2011: "The Washington Examiner's Philip Klein pushed Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom's argument last night that his candidate is "against amnesty, and Newt Gingrich made it very clear he was for amnesty," prompting this exchange: " [9]
2012: "But later Tuesday night, Klein posted audio of the congresswoman’s Monday comments that clearly feature her saying..." [10]
2011: "senior writer at The Washington Examiner, Philip Klein, who wrote to POLITICO in an email that he sees a cultural gap playing out ... " [11]
2008: "There certainly are good reasons to suspect Philip Klein's motivations on the Romney article, but he does make serious points that deserve ..."
2011: "The Washington Examiner's Philip Klein pushed Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom's argument last night that his candidate is "against amnesty, ..."
2016: "On Friday morning, Rubio responded directly to Washington Examiner's Philip Klein on Twitter after he tweeted his column headlined "Donald ..." [12]
2011: "The Washington Examiner's Philip Klein didn't react until the day after the blog posting, preferring instead to wait until after his commemoration ..." [13].NotButtigieg (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has been cleaned up and reliable secondary sources have been added. Whatever the subject's political bent, notability is shown through significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. The subject has appeared on C-SPAN 11 times and has worked for the Washington Examiner since 2011, with a second promotion to the executive editor position, certainly not a case of "too soon" as stated above. The subject has written books that have been reviewed or cited by national news outlets. The false accusation against the subject made by the head of the DNC had wide and significant coverage as well. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST and meets WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. NotButtigieg, could you just list the refs above that are interviews/profiles from independent RS that are on him? Politico and the Washington Post are full WP:RS/Ps so any profile by them on him would be a full WP:SIGCOV (and a Keep). Remember, that as a journalist, his own articles do not support GNG (i.e. journalists who write in high quality RS are not themselves GNG, unless other RS write about the journalist). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles I listed/linked to above were written by Klein. They are all articles written by other people in media by which he was not employed and they are responses to things Klein wrote or said, or articles citing something he wrote, did or said, or discussions of articles Klein wrote or of assertions he made.NotButtigieg (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NotButtigieg, have any of them covered/wrote about him as a notable person (not about what he wrote as an article) – core GNG notability? OR, have any quality independent RS done reviews of his books (per WP:NAUTHOR) – that could also help for GNG? I have a feeling that he will become notable give his activity and roles, however, would be good to nail this properly. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple book reviews, and also, for example, indepth commentary and analysis of the Obamacare book by Ross Douthat and by Peter Suderman of Reason magazine (separate from the book review by Suderman). Is there a guideline for editors, a sort of parallel to WP:JOURNALIST? I ask because I would have thought that the editor of an impactful political magazine would be prima facie notable.NotButtigieg (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, Kleine meets WP:AUTHOR 3, "The person has created... work... (that has) been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."NotButtigieg (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this week, the Washington Monthly [14] did not like something Klein said and The Federalist liked [15] something Klein said. He gets into the news that way all the time, which how I came to be looking him up on Wikipedia a couple of weeks ago when I joined this conversation. I do not know if this cuts any mustard as an argument, but Wikipedia is useful because you can look guys like this up and find out a little more than you can see in their bio line.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2020 (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.