Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Potok

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 no consensus. v/r - T P 15:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Potok

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

fails all tests for notability Avocats (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, it passes WP:GNG: there are numerous independent media sources included in the references section, and plenty more that aren't included in the references section including an interview with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, an interview with NPR, quoting in the Daily Mail, MSNBC and more. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This MSNBC coverage For some observers, history repeating itself qualifies notability guidelines. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Therefore, there was no qualification for the nomination based upon the nominator stating the article "fails all tests for notability." It appears the nominator may not have used the WP:BEFORE guidelines before the nomination. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person does not satisfy the Wiki guidelines for notability. The Southern Poverty Law Center is notable; its communications director does not have independent notability. This is an important distinction. The subject was an ordinary reporter prior to this position; he did not found the SPLC, and is simply someone who presents SPLC information to the nation and the world. The article's first two cites are to the subject's father's (unrelated) book and to an upcoming small community forum in his hometown. The others are to articles not about him, but rather about news events upon which he is asked, as comunications director, for comment. There are numerous cites that relate to podcasts and HuffPost blogging. I did indeed WP:BEFORE and found nothing to suggest that the subject has done anything notable himself. He mentions attending but not graduating from university; he mentions working for an award-winning journal but there's no indication when the award was made and whether his work there was related to the award. Again, the SPLC is notable; Morris Dees is notable. The subject is an employee, one that is called on because he is the media contact. This article seems to reflect a surge in what are, at bottom, self-promotion pieces that seek to take a relationship to a notable entity and turn it into notability for the person. Neither of those alone constitutes notability in the Wiki sense. Also, I do not see the subject as either a political candidate or an "activist." Avocats (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you strongly believe the person isn't notable. MSNBC, the Daily Mail, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, NPR, CNN, the BBC, PBS, the New York Times and the Guardian disagree. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, those sources cite his name in discussing the work of the SPLC. There's a difference. The articles are not about him or even his work (communications); they are about the work of the SPLC, for which there is an entry.Avocats (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Significant coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources.--JayJasper (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the SPLC issues, not of the PR person. If this were sufficient for WP:NG, there'd be an entry for every "celebrity" and another for every celebrity's flack. IMO.Avocats (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The SPLC does great stuff and is notable, but there's not content here that this particular staffer is notable. It's not even clear to me whether he's a lawyer or a PR person. I suspect the latter. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interviews are primary sources and do not count toward notability, being quoted in an article is not substantial coverage. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being quoted in an article is not substantial, however being quoted, interviewed and cited as an expert in a field in numerous articles builds notability. He has been quoted and interviewed as an expert in over 60 NPR articles/pieces over the last fifteen years --Ryan.germany (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2011 (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.