Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Schecter

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. Tone 19:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Schecter

[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 article was created in 2010 with no sources[1] and remains basically unchanged today, although sources have been added for part of the article. While the subject may be notable, it is better to Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over and allow someone to re-write it based on reliable sources. In the meantime, we cannot allow a BLP that is unsourced. Note that while there are lots of google hits, they go to articles by this journalist, rather than about him. TFD (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I gave the article a trim. As the nom says, it is hard to find articles about him. But I do wonder if they are out there. Not everyone gets to write an op-ed for the NY times.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to say Keep, since when I Googled phrases similar to "according to Cliff Schecter" I got many results in multiple sources (example, example2). Here's a book review in the Guardian, another in the New York Review of Books and another in Vanity Fair. There may not be much about him per se, but there is lots of coverage of his work (the book, mainly), and he is widely cited. He therefore meets WP:JOURNALIST (1a: widely cited by peers).ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not move the article to The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him and Why Independents Shouldn't? TFD (talk) 06:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Might be OK. WHy did you nominate him then? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is notable. The book is notable and there is no separate book article. Whatever we call this, there is notable content here sufficient for a stand-alone article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - virtually all of the sources are by him! Bearian (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looking at the sources in the article, he wrote most of them. Looking at the book reviews, there's only one specifically on his book (Vanity Fair.) Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 01:38, 29 October 2019 (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.