Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Singal (2nd nomination)

Jesse_Singal

[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 biographical page was previously deleted due to not meeting notability requirements Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Singal

In the interspersing time the subject does not appear to have gained notability, going from being a Senior Editor in NYMag, to self published.

A claim to notability is a book he published, however a search of bestseller lists shows the book did not reach them and holds about 100,000# in book sales ranking with Bookmarks noting it had a tepid reception. [1]. I worry that if we gave the 100,000th top book a page, we would have to give every obscure book ranking better a page as well.

The final claim to his notability is that he was involved in a journalism controversy during 2018 which CJR briefly summarized here[2]. However it appears to have died down and he has no longer obtained publications on the subject making it appear to be a case of wp:BIO1E.

To conclude I don’t see what has changed from last time which held an overwhelming consensus for delete apart from a decline in the subjects publication prominence and a wp:BIO1E event that died down. Apart from a brief critical mention in CJR I do not see WP:SIGCOV that could meet WP:BASIC Freepsbane (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum I am concerned that most of the article is wp:BIO1E with the remaining segments dedicated to his podcast and obscure book when neither are notable. If we give everyone who gets a page a large promotional section to their book, even if it was not commercially successful or notable in reception, then surely every self published author would be clamoring for a page where they can advertise their books at Wikipedia. At the very least the book section reads like vanity advertising for an obscure product and should be trimmed. To a lesser extent the section on his podcast/self publishing career is needless promotion as well, it does little but cite self published and primary sources often by authors connected to the subject. Again it concerns me that if we are too permissive with promotion, every marginally notable blogger will be getting Wikipedia puff pieces on their obscure books and blogs. Freepsbane (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage all parties involved in this current iteration of the article @Newimpartial: @-sche: @Colin M: and the editors from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Singal @E.M.Gregory: @BigHaz: @Johnpacklambert: to contribute their wisdom to this discussion. Apologies if my grammar is poor my friends, English is not my first language.Freepsbane (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. wp:BIO1E does not really apply here. There is RS coverage spanning 4 years and several areas. Much of the information mentioned in the nomination (e.g. the sales figures and reception of his book) are irrelevant to WP:N. The article that was deleted in 2017 was a single ten-word sentence, so the concerns raised in that deletion discussion don't have a lot of applicability here. Also, while not a reason to keep per se, it's worth noting the article is currently linked from 17 other mainspace pages. Colin M (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, his previously deleted article was not ten sentences, it was essentially this but without the wp:BIO1E. Indeed in some ways it compared favorably as it did not have large sections dedicated to book promotion. I ask, can you establish he meets wp:BASIC? His book was what you held as entitling him to an article however it’s very obscure and instead reciving promotion? Is it his publication prominence as muckrack says he’s had almost zero articles published in the last two years? Or is it merely a few primary sources from a wp:BIO1E that died down. If the later is all we have then our article is possibly less viable than last times. Also many of those 17 sources you note are self published (his own blog has to provide biographical detail as he is too obscure for a paper of record [3][4] the podcast source is a link to his Patreon[5]), and the remainder by authors who say they have social ties to him(Walker is said to be in arguments with him, Gillespie who wrote a promotional piece was according to muckrack his Reason editor [6] . They are primary sources and often part of the story.Freepsbane (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]