Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Judge (writer)

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. WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Judge (writer)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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

Not notable outside of single event so WP:BLP1E. PackMecEng (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. His role in the Supreme Court nomination controversy is minor. - Mr X 🖋 14:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I think this discussion would be more appropriate in a month or so. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: Do you think he would become notable outside of this event in a month or so? He has not been for the past 20 years. PackMecEng (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, possibly, if he continues to receive coverage. His face is all over news outlets currently. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is basically WP:RECENTISM and all tied to one event, with no sign of lasting notability. Leading to WP:BLP1E. PackMecEng (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your specious argument is specifically why I am focusing on research into sources BEFORE any particular event. Sagecandor (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even after a week of his name in the news there is barley anything to support a page just for him. His name an history can be a small piece at the pages for Kavanaugh ‎and Ford. ContentEditman (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. KalHolmann (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, commentator and published author of minor note prior to this incident. Gamaliel (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination#Sexual assault allegation. The subject does not appear to meet WP:Author and appears notable for only one event WP:BLP1E. --Enos733 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Enos733: I clicked the link you provided. There is no mention of Mark Judge. How would this help a Wikipedia visitor? KalHolmann (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is truly a WP:BLP1E, then a mention of his alleged involvement (participation?) in the controversy would be appropriate there. However, I am beginning to think there might be enough book reviews to meet WP:Author, but I note that the reliable book reviews did not immediately pop up in my initial searches. --Enos733 (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and the comments of E.M.Gregory. --Enos733 (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Enos733, for having the strength of character to reevaluate your prior position based on subsequent improvements to the article. Sagecandor (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author of multiple published books. Books are each subject of multiple published book reviews. Notable author. Independent notability. Notability prior to, during, and after any one individual particular event. Sagecandor (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing books doesn't necessarily mean notable. See WP:AUTHOR, where the guidelines are "widely cited," "originating a new concept," "well-known work," or "significant critical attention." I don't think Judge can demonstrate any of these. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Before recent events brought him more noteriety, he was already the author of multiple books related to Georgetown Prep life and Washington D.C. area culture, and served as a contributing writer at prominent outlets such as The Daily Caller and The American Spectator. The recent events magnify these existing themes even more, so his bio should not be seen as a WP:BLP1E violation for "only for one event." The third criteria of BLP1E is not met. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuzheado: The third criterion reads, "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." There is no question that Ford's allegations are significant. However, Mark Judge's role in the underlying event was at most unsubstantial. As Ford tells it, his active participation consisted solely of jumping on top of the grappling couple, sending all three tumbling. Even accepting her version as true, we are left to ponder why he did so. Was it drunken horseplay or was he trying to prevent a rape? And in any case, Mark Judge himself denies the whole incident. KalHolmann (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Fuzheado: They do not meet the criteria for WP:AUTHOR. From what I see it meets all three criteria for WP:BLP1E. Certainly only received the vast majority of his coverage in relation to this one event. After this event they are unlikely to be notable for anything besides this event. Finally their roll in this event is rather insignificant. If they need to be covered in relation to this even they can be covered in any of the three other articles that talk about it. PackMecEng (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a misinterpretation of the first criterion of BLP1E, which doesn't talk about a "majority". Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for independent notability and enhanced notability. The fact that Mr. Judge's name is now in the news is not somehow a strike against notability, it is a point for it. Robert K S (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. I was going to nominate this one myself. A few minor books about very minor topics do not convey notability as required by WP:AUTHOR. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AUTHOR more than satisfied. Author of not one, but multiple notable books. Books that are themselves independently notable and the subject of multiple independent book reviews themselves. Sagecandor (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RS say otherwise, with little to no coverage of the books before this event. Even then they meet no criteria of WP:AUTHOR. So no coverage and no impact from his writing means they are not notable for their writing. PackMecEng (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Multiple book reviews for multiple books. Sagecandor (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately my friend you are very mistaken. Also he fails to meet the other criteria of WP:AUTHOR as others have pointed out. Point one, heck no. Point two, again nope. Point three, don't think so. Point four, not happening. Having books does not make one a notable author. PackMecEng (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTHOR as author of multiple books that satisfy WP:NBOOK, does make one a notable author. Sagecandor (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBOOK is for the books themselves, not the author. Which these books do not meet either btw. Also WP:AUTHOR has nothing to do with the number of books. PackMecEng (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PackMecEng: From WP:AUTHOR, In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. That's basically WP:NBOOK. wumbolo ^^^ 21:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You kind of skipped over the first part, which must be met before the "in addition" section you quoted. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." That sure and heck has not happened. PackMecEng (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he created a book which has an article and seems significant (review in the NYT and a couple of other reviews). wumbolo ^^^ 22:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter how many books he wrote. None of them are widely reviewed, impactful, or well known. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter how many times you complain, but it won't stop the fact that the books satisfy WP:NBOOK. Sagecandor (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable author. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to the Kavanaugh confirmation battle) on WP:BLP1E grounds, with no prejudice towards recreation should he gain more WP:RS coverage for his work as an author. 28bytes (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR - coverage (e.g. NYT) of his books on drunkeness culture. Involvement in the nomination schedule (the 1E) only adds to notability and doea not subtract.Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: Did you mean WP:AUTHOR? PackMecEng (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, fixed above.Icewhiz (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:NOTNEWS. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Note that WP:BLP1E, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:NOTNEWS do NOT apply because the books were reviewed and cited (checked titles in gBooks) years before his high school drinking buddy was nominated to the Supreme Court, and those reviews carry him pas WP:NAUTHOR. The fact that Judge's life, career and books - several of which are about his drunk, high school partying, have been the subject extensive coverage since the nomination battle. Between the book reviews, the discussions of his books in secondary sources (some of which pre-date the nomination battle,) and the coverage sparked by the nomination he has WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Sagecandor (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - "have been the subject extensive coverage since the nomination battle" Which is a perfect example of why WP:NOTNEWS exists, E.M.Gregory. If he had not been connected with Kavanaugh, an article on him would have been put up here at AfD and delete would have been the consensus for not meeting WP:GNG, even in light of WP:NAUTHOR (as PackMecEng points out below). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. When he came into this week's news cycle, he was being described as a as a high school drinking/partying buddy of Kavenaugh' who had published a memoir about his youthful alcoholism. Turns out he published several. I started this article only after looking and ascertaining that his books had gotten enough coverage back when they were published to support notability. It looked like this [1]. WP:HEYMANN, many more pre-2018 sources have since been added, a couple by me, most by other editors. What I want to point out is that it is routine and legitimate for an editor like me who creates pages often, to notice a topic because it is in the news cycle, run some searches, and decide that the subject in the news had pre-existing notability, as happened with Judge who can pass AUTHOR on pre-2018 material. Of course, a lot of WP:BLP1Es are kept, because the person has become too notable to delete (you might want to re-read that policy). But to me, and despite the fact that I had never heard of him until this week, Judge is not in the [[WP:BLP1E] category because of the many years of coverage in WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable putative eyewitness and participant of a critical event. Mksword (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is he though? PackMecEng (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think he would be borderline as an author, but the coverage of Judge as an author plus the Kavanaugh-related coverage brings this over the significant-coverage threshold, in my eye. Neutrality^talk 01:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: If there was not recent coverage, would he be notable enough? Looking at the sources listed for reviews there is nothing continuing and certainly nothing impactful, at least to me. Yes some of his work at the time of release was covered by secondary sources but they come off as mostly passing mention and nothing sustained or particularly notable. PackMecEng (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it hadn't been for this, he'd never be noticed and no one would have ever accused him of being a notable author--which he isn't anyway (he doesn't have the coverage for it). So delete per NOTNEWS, though I have no doubt this will be kept because...well, NEWS. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage regarding Kavanaugh, along with his previous books and journalistic work, are plenty for GNG. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP-1E and NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS as he doesn't otherwise appear to be notable - article would be deleted if not for the recent controversy. SportingFlyer talk 05:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I strongly suggest that editors look at the pre-2018 sourcing, which include multiple reviews of his books in WP:RS, such as this deep dive into Judge's argument Tales of a Gen X Swinger; A music critic's juvenile cultural politics by Jesse Walker. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Arguments based on either 1) he wouldn't be notable if there was only this one event, or 2) he wouldn't be notable with only prior coverage without this one event, don't actually have anything to do with the subject's actual notability. All the above are added to the ledger when accounting for GNG. There is apparently enough to write a well sourced article with, because we have written what is apparently a fairly well sourced article. Therefore GNG. GMG^talk 14:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they do--if he hadn't done anything noteworthy before, it's a case where either NOTNEWS or BLP1E can apply. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Coverage prior to the one event doesn't have to itself meet GNG in a vacuum; it has to be sufficient to exclude If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. That is not the same as saying The person would still be notable if this event had never occurred. The one event, along with the prior coverage both factor into to GNG, and it's not necessary that either of those alone would meet GNG to say that both of them together do. BLP1E is not leave to arbitrarily ignore extant sources when considering the entire body of sources available for a subject. It is leave to disregard a short burst of sources when that's all there is. GMG ^talk 15:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough for an article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a game of adding. He may not make it as an author. He also may not make it for this one event. However, when one looks at the whole picture, he meets WP:N. Plus, there is the point of about being useful. In 100 years, if someone wanted to look at this nomination fight, would they want to know about Mark Judge or not?Casprings (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how notability works. Also if in 100 years they want to know what they hubbub is they can look at the other articles either about the hearing or Ford. Both have all the info they would need on this minor part of the controversy.PackMecEng (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am pretty sure that is how it works. You get in the news for one thing, then another... and eventually you are WP:N. Recent news and his previous work’s coverage clearly total enough coverage that he is WP:N.Casprings (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable author, coverage is enough for GNG. Not a BLP1E in my view. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ignore for now the flood of coverage in the last 96 hours and evaluate only the previous coverage, such as this in-depth critical analysis of one of his several books. The New York Times also reviewed another of his books. There are several other such reviews. That coverage disposes of the BLP1E concerns. The flood of recent coverage, which is about 99.99% sure to continue for some time to come, seals the deal. He is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is significant critical analysis of Judge's writing that was published by The Atlantic back in 2013. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR with multiple periodical book reviews. James500 (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball close keep w/o prejudice to renom in 6 months: These AFDs waste our time, we never reach consensus during a news blizzard.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisifed NAUTHOR before this incident so BLP1E does not apply.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M.Gregory and Cullen. Some of the above references to BLP1E seem to either misinterpret that policy or to not take into account the sourcing situation fully. Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - borderline, but I don't think he's writing is sufficient for notability and his connection to Kavanaugh can be appropriately treated in that article. Volunteer Marek 16:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Ummm, more stuff might be coming out - gonna wait to !vote here. Volunteer Marek 16:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E and NOTNEWS. Lepricavark (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems okay to me, wp:GNG met. Of course many new bio articles are created when an event happens bringing the person into the news, e.g. when a person dies and there are obituaries. It is okay for us to remedy the previous omission of coverage. --Doncram (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He meets WP:NAUTHOR. Even if he didn't, it's dubious he'd meet all three required prongs of the WP:BLP1E exclusion criteria. (For the record, this is not the ivote I expected to cast, but, reviewing policy and available references, here I am.) Innisfree987 (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Innisfree987:Thank you for your due diligence and your review of policy and available references. Your honest statement about your initial expectations versus your Keep assessment after your review, shows the strength of your character. Sagecandor (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the role in the recent controversy has produced in-depth profiles of his writings, such as Meet Mark Judge; What We Know About Mark Judge; What Mark Judge Wrote About Women; Mark Judge ... has opined about rowdy-young-male behavior for years, etc. BIO1E no longer applies. Also, meets (or almost meets) WP:NAUTHOR with reviews of his books. Everything combined meets WP:N. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: BLP1E very much applies to your in-depth profiles, since they are written in the context of one BLP-sensitive event. wumbolo ^^^ 16:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that WP:BLP1E does not say being known only for one event excludes all bios on living subjects: it only recommends against bios that meet all three of its exclusion criteria, and these sources specific to this one event strongly suggest this bio would not meet the last prong. (The book coverage shows the bio doesn't meet the second prong either.) Innisfree987 (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The last one: If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. There is no evidence that his role is greater than zero. wumbolo ^^^ 22:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are, I imagine, speaking of his role in the 1982 alleged event. Wikipedia recognizes that making allegations can be a significant event in its own right (as it clearly is here), with guidance on handling allegations at WP:PUBLICFIGURE. It's widely documented that he's been accused as an accomplice in allegations affecting a nomination to the US Supreme Court, and RS are treating him as relevant to that very significant event. (Not relevant to deletion, but the above also misstates the evidence on the prior event. Testimony from the alleged victim and outcry witnesses is evidence.) Innisfree987 (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there's overwhelming evidence, BLP1E applies until convicted per WP:BLPCRIME. wumbolo ^^^ 22:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable author, coverage is enough for GNG. Djflem (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3. Random accusations by random classmates ought to be nuked (especially from the lead) until third-party analysis is published by reliable sources. But that's not a reason to delete. wumbolo ^^^ 16:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A long article about Mark Judge appeared in a local newspaper. The news article discussed Judge's history, including his father. Comfr (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even before this scandal, he had a claim to notability as a writer. Bearian (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR. He is the author of multiple notable books. See Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk and God and Man at Georgetown Prep. Thsmi002 (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree with nom. Subject passes WP:AUTHOR. GenuineArt (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2018 (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.