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 keep. Tone 20:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Weigel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:BIO. Just because the person has written a lot via newspaper blogs does not make the individual notable. Note that article had already been speedily deleted but was restored. As per the policy on "journalists", his individual work is not 1)regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors 2) had a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews or 3)either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. -Ave Caesar (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Based on the fact that he is considered an expert in his chosen field as the following quotes show: “elite media journalist. ... David Weigel,” per the Washington Post on Oct 31, 2008 and by the Los Angeles Times quoting “David Weigel pointed out in multiple critiques of ... in the world of professional journalism” on June 11, 2008. In addition, there are quotes from NPR – Time – Dallas Morning News – the Irish Times – Washington Times plus several other reliable – certifiable – third party – independent sources that also attest to this fact, as shown here [1]. Based on this information, Mr. Weigle meets our criteria for inclusion here at Wikipedia. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 21:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think as a well-known national journalist, he is notable. The above comment by Shoessss supports this thought.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is a blogger, not a journalist. That's not to say bloggers can't be notable, but there is no proof of influence. --Ave Caesar (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Supporting the fact that Mr. Weigel meets the criterion of being a notable journalist is that he has appeared on multiple NPR shows (Weekend Edition, Fresh Air with Terry Gross - twice) and numerous times on the MSNBC evening cable news/political shows. In addition, he is frequently referenced when not on those shows by Wikipedia notables, including: Chris Hayes (Washington, D.C. Editor of The Nation), Ana Marie Cox (Washington Correspondent for GQ Magazine), and Rachel Maddow herself of the Rachel Maddow Show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolverstone (talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the first and only edit made by the above user...Further, the user offers no proof of wide citation.--Ave Caesar (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments of Shoessss and Wolverstone.--JayJasper (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above and the fact that Weigel was just snatched up by the Washington Post because of the unparalleled work he's currently doing covering the conservative movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.142.166 (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It needs better sourcing, but I don't see why he's not notable. Keep, although that is not an endorsement of his ideas. 22:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep. I was looking for information on this journalist and I found it here. That is what an encyclopedia is for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.71.241 (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable blogger per Wikipedia criteria.--98.218.126.193 (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:AUTH: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors". Evidence of this has been supplied by Shoes. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:47, 13 April 2010 (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.