Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Judge (writer)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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.

π, ν) 21:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Mark Judge (writer)

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

Mark Judge (writer) (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)
"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
]

@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: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]
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]
@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: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
]
@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]
(
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:NBOOK, does make one a notable author. Sagecandor (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:AUTHOR has nothing to do with the number of books. PackMecEng (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
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
]
@
WP:AUTHOR? PackMecEng (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Yup, fixed above.Icewhiz (talk) 20:01, 19 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. Neutralitytalk 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]
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]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Judge_(writer)&oldid=860906574"