Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Birger

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Jon Birger

Jon Birger (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)

All the sources are written by the subject himself with none toward him by others, meaning this article fails on notability. Donnie Park (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - after a Google search for newspaper articles or reviews on his work, I'm leaning towards delete. I didn't find much, mostly mentions of his comments on articles about tangential topics. I looked for reviews of his book, and while the book is mentioned quite a bit in the mainstream media, the book itself is not the central topic of conversation in those articles. Yvarta (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Delete lack of indepth coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Starting off with his speaking engagement at the Cato Institute (which is already included in the article), we also have this in the Boston Globe, this on WCVB, this on GreenwhichTime], this from WaPo, and this from Deseret News, and that's just what I found on the first 3 pages of the search. A search which is made more difficult by how many articles he's published. He's had major articles in The New York Times, New York Magazine, The Observer, Money, Washington Post, and Time. And again, that's just what I found on the first 3 pages of the search. Passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR 3, since he has "created ... a significant or well-known work..." and that work has "been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews":
  • Christianity Today[1]
  • The Guardian[2]
  • Kirkus[3]
  • Glamour magazine[4]
  • The Daily Beast[5]
  • New York Times[6]
  • VICE Media[7]
  • ABC[8]
  • Washington Post[9]
  • The Federalist[10]
  • Marie Claire[11]
  • Washingtonian[12]
  • NY Post[13]
  • Miami New Times[14]

The article obviously needs help, but he meets the notability criteria.--Jahaza (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep – Per a review of available sources, passes WP:BASIC and point #3 of WP:AUTHOR. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

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.