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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Deutsch[edit]

Kevin Deutsch (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)

Insufficient sourcing to pass GNG outside of a brouhaha over sourcing of a book. Tossing aside coverage of this single event, quoting the words of the complainant at an ongoing AN/I case over edit-warring on this piece, "His '15 year career in journalism' is not actually particularly notable and would likely be deleted as a stand-alone article."

I personally have no strong views on the matter but would like community input as to whether this individual's biography does or does not fulfill the General Notability Guideline or, failing that, any relevant Special Notability Guideline. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, albeit with some reluctance. (I was the one who said the above quote and brought this to ANI originally... and maybe I'll regret this !vote if the POV-pushing edit war continues eternally.) Deutsch doesn't qualify as a low-profile individual - he's self-promoted himself, he's written books & done book signing & self-promotion events, etc. So while his "normal" journalism career is of no importance as far as sources are concerned, his work as an author is of borderline notability, and the scandal was large and long-running enough as to not be a WP:BLP1E issue. (It also involved more than just the book... it also tainted the journalism career, with editor's notes and redactions being made retroactively to articles he wrote. So the SCANDAL was notable if not the career itself.) The fact that the scandal originally broke in March 2017, and has kept rolling since then with things like this April 2017 Rolling Stone article or this September 2017 Washington Post story, which are willing to make comparisons with notable-for-the-wrong-reasons journalists like Jayson Blair, also shows that the issue has legs. SnowFire (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Snowfire has pegged this one exactly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As the original article creator, I recall that the rationale for approval of the article initially was fact that Deutsch's books are carried in multiple libraries he and has written high profile stories for major pubs. If he was notable enough for inclusion then, he probably is now. That being said, I have concerns about what appear to be pretty transparent attempts to harm subject's reputation through excising of neutrality from article. I think the admins must make the final call here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexVegaEsquire (talk • contribs)

• Well, if he was a WP editor and had done here the sort of writing that the Washington Post article documents, we would probably block him from editing. But such coverage probably does guarantee him an article; we do have Stephen Glass.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:IAR. He probably meets WP:GNG, it probably isn't WP:BLP1E, and it probably doesn't contain personal attacks, but all are borderline. Given the long-standing battle-ground nature and WP:COATRACK sourcing of the article, the encyclopedia is better off without it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC, per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-extensive coverage. For those wanting a quick summary of this insane story this sums it up well. I was considering proposing moving to Pill City as a compromise, but a story that provides coverage of his other work makes me convinced that he is notable for all of his work, not just that book. I would move parts of the second and third paragraph into the intro to provide a broader coverage of his work from the beginning, though. Blythwood (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Maybe the extensive amount of mention of articles are making the subject a bit too hyped, whether he fails GNG or not, I can't decide it yet. Lorstaking (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's clear from rolling Stone and other sources that morethan this one book is involved. That makes the individual also notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has independent sources covering him, though for all the wrong reasons. Either way, the article reads fine and passes some amount of notability. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 06:57, 17 October 2017 (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.