Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Wexler

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Wexler

[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 subject fails WP:GNG because he is not the actual topic of any apparent coverage. He speaks about child protection and he speaks about himself, but no unrelated reliable party has written in-depth about this subject to support an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 16:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a large paragraph claiming he has been interviewed and featured in a total of 15 media outlets, but there are only a handful of citations, most of them do not even mention his name, one is a fake citation, and the few that do, are just op-eds he wrote. The NY Times source get's one sentence from him, which seems like a low bar for notability. Zenomonoz (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also looked through google news to see if I could find secondary sources covering him or his work, however they all seem to be his own op-eds. In Google Books, they are his own books. Zenomonoz (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zenomonoz: Is "Seconding" a !vote for delete? If so, please consider putting "Seconding deletion" in bold for easy reference by the closer. If you didn't intend to !vote, please disregard this note. JFHJr (㊟) 21:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a vote for delete, fixed. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding third-party sources carrying in-depth information about the guy. Google results show works by him, or him being briefly introduced as the source of statements on the area of his specialty but without going into depth about him. The Council that he is Executive Director of appears to have only one staff member, that being him. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a Jewish advocate that shares the same name, nothing found for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't find any in-depth coverage of the man himself (surprisingly), but I will say this, when reliable sources need a statement and/or quote in relation to child welfare issues, they turn to Wexler quite frequently. I found him being referenced in books, journals, magazines, newspapers; US Congress and state proceedings; as a subject matter expert. Between ProQuest and Newspapers.com, I found over a thousand news articles using him as a reference for a statement/quote on child welfare issues. He was in all the major newspapers, mid-size and local newspapers as well. And I also found dozens of op-eds/guest columns in newspapers (small sample):

Bigger system won't help kids
SB 1473 is a detour
Children have rights too
DCF's take the kids and run policy

This much is true: he is a noted child welfare advocate. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if GNG gets refactored or a separate WP:COMMENTATOR gets formulated, this article can get restored. But it doesn't seem to pass current guidelines, and we can't refactor or formulate them here. JFHJr (㊟) 00:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of those are op-eds by Wexler, which is the problem. Him writing his own articles for publications do not establish notability. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2023 (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.