Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Deutsch

Kevin Deutsch

(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.