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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Grunwald[edit]

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

Notability - zero. Very brief and very insignificant news coverage, mostly in connection with the person he "tweeted" about. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Leo711 (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets part 3 of WP:AUTHOR: "The person has created, or played 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." Both his books have been widely reviewed and satisfy this criteria and meet WP:NBOOK; see my post here for references for his other book. In addition to this, he's also won some awards for his work, and has received coverage because of his tweets. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just three days ago he was whoever. Now all of a sudden he's a recognized author? I don't think so. His books are not widely known and he's definitely not Mark Twain. Right now Wikipedia has become the primary source of information about him - we have the most detailed article on the subject. If you want to keep him mentioned, we may move it to Assange's article. Leo711 (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets part 3 of WP:AUTHOR. This is a well known author, I've added three reviews for The Swamp (NYT, NPR, USN&WR) and his second book The New New Deal has reviews in The Economist, Bloomberg, Reason, etc.. there are probably many more than this. Never heard of the twitter thing the nom mentions. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable author. The Twitter controversy is not the main claim to notability, just some recent controversy that finally got someone here to notice him.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly. Even if the Twitter controversy were in fact his path to notability, that still makes him notable. Notability isn't a "but for" test of causation, but in fact a question of whether people take note. Similarly, Brandi Chastain's notability stems 95% from ripping her shirt off. A large number of people have indeed taken note, and that interest goes beyond simply describing the incident to describing their life and career. Anyway, even if that's 95% of their notability, I would argue that on a basic notability test the other 5% makes him notable independently. A senior national correspondent for one of the most prominent news outlets in the U.S., both his position and his body of work are substantial. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while I believe the article could use some expansion and work, this is a keeper as he is an award-winning journalist and for all the above reasons, with which I agree. Crtew (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. While this article should not be a coatrack for the twitter incident, being a prominent Time journalist alone is sufficient notability. Gamaliel (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2013 (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.