Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Brooks (political commentator)

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (

💬💬) 17:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Michael Brooks (political commentator)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

csp

|username}}.

[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)

Delete as nom. Fails

💬💬) 03:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Ditto. There just isn't enough information on Brooks to craft a satisfactory Wikipedia article. ~~HandIsNotNookls (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I explained on the proposer's talk page, there is now significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources per
WP:GNG, which was determined not to be the case in the previous AfD. I have easily found three sources so far (Fox News, Jacobin Magazine, Heavy.com), with more likely to be published in the coming hours and days. I hope that the proposer reconsiders this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

As I said on my talk page, coverage of his death is not enough to warrant an article per

💬💬) 03:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

And as I responded on your talk page, the articles describe him as notable for more than his death. Articles created shortly after death is not uncommon, see Ellie Soutter and its deletion discussion. Like that, this is a case of the published, independent and reliable sources discussing the subject (beyond one event) being published largely after death. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All three of those sources (Fox News, Jacobin Magazine, Heavy.com) are sources citing information about his death. There are no sources on the article to back up the other information, such as his academic background or his alma mater. HandIsNotNookls (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The three sources discuss his life as well as his death, and there are many more sources other there. If there aren't sources for his academic background then we can remove those details. That's no reason to delete the entire article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Brooks's political positions are well documented through his extensive commentaries, which provide more than adequate substance for the page. Note also that Sam Seder, for whom he was cohost, has a page. AskohlerOpus111 (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

💬💬) 03:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a fair rebuttal of HandIsNotNookIs' comment. There is independent coverage of Brooks' commentary, and there will be more published in the days to come, in addition to biographical information. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected re:

WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I stand by the rest of my statement above about Brooks's commentaries. I would add that the Majority Report has a large number of subscribers, and that Brooks was the most prominent voice on the program after Sam Seder. While the coverage of his death may not itself warrant a Wikipedia page, the coverage and reaction from colleagues does evince the fact that he was a prominent figure. AskohlerOpus111 (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I actually am not so sure I stand correct on the

WP:OTHERSTUFF count, since I cited a page that is directly related. AskohlerOpus111 (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep . Brooks is notable, not just for his death, but for his entire career as a political commentator and journalist as the articles cited above mention. Brooks also meets the criteria for
WP:AUTHOR (1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.). Currently Michael Brooks is the top trending mention on twitter with over 45.8k unique mentions. His body of work is being cited by journalists, world leaders, politicians, and entertainers as having a significant and unique importance in his field of progressive journalism. Citationsaurus (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC) — Citationsaurus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

💬💬) 05:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Citations and mentions of his work and his regard as an important figure in his field by his peers and successors is part of the notability guideline, regardless of the medium in which those citations are published. Citationsaurus (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.
WP:ENT specifies a large following or cult warrants inclusion. His book is #8 in Political Philosophy, for proper weight, #7 and #9 are Plato. I think the status is also substantiated by his large following on Twitter, YouTube, and Patreon. Evan Carroll (talk
)

Sources don't indicate a particularly large or "cult" following. Follower/subscriber numbers are worthless here, but 98k followers on his personal account and 31k followers on his show's account is nothing to write home about.

💬💬) 05:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The Michael Brook Show's Youtube account has 131k subscribers and 23,575,687 views, and the show he co-hosted, The Majority Report, has 894k subscribers and 357,519,210 views. These metrics put him ahead of the majority of his colleagues in his field and would indeed be something to write home about. Citationsaurus (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . In addition to everything else being said here - he was mentioned by a former head of state as a journalist in a eulogy - he's not some random youtube host. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.49.105.175 (talk • contribs) — 136.49.105.175 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep, per arguments above. ImTheIP (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many sources about him (that are not about his death) are more recent than the last AfD which was in 2018. I agree that a few of the statements currently being put into the article are not discussed in high quality sources but there is more than enough for
WP:GNG. Connor Behan (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The article has since been developed more. But there needs to be more individual references for his various media appearances. Also perhaps include more on The Michael Brooks Show and the guests that have been featured, i.e. Noam Chomsky, Richard Wolff, Cornel West, Lula, Slavoj Žižek, ContraPoints, Matt Taibbi, Krystal Ball, Mark Blyth, Robert McChesney, Vijay Prashad, Vivek Chibber, Petra Costa etc. Οἶδα (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. KidAd, the article was poor at the time you nominated it. Now the article has been improved significantly with 21 sources and several additional sections. It is no longer just a eulogy. The sources I added all pre-dated his death and I thank the other editors for developing them further. It is inappropriate for you to try to nibble down the content to try to make this individual look non-notable just to get a win. I suggest you admit your defeat and withdraw the nomination. Trackinfo (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I second the suggestion. AskohlerOpus111 (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pointless AfD – Deletion discussions after a recent death establish nothing. ---
Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree that this isn't the best time for a deletion discussion, but I disagree if you are implying that whatever consensus comes from this discussion should be disregarded. The vast majority of the comments are policy-based and comment on whether or not the article's reliable sources satisfactorily meet the notability guidelines. Perhaps if the comments were mostly single purpose accounts, then this could be a pointless discussion which establishes nothing, but that is far from the case at the moment. Vanilla Wizard 💙 09:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His recent death has been reported on by various
WP:RS sources. Also, I love how far Wikipedians go to discredit and defame independent political voices, even in death. CompactSpacez (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The Independent has also published an article about Brooks and many readers are likely to find a Wikipedia article on him useful, as well as future readers researching progressive media in the US. His notability in US progressive politics is also clear given how many major figures have expressed their condolences, even Jane Sanders. eug (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep The article is not in the state that it was at the time of nomination, and I disagree with the rationale that someone's death necessarily does not impact their notability; this is simply untrue, numerous articles from many reliable secondary source outlets go into detail not just about his sudden death and the condolences given, but also the work that he did in his life. Sources can and do become available even after the subject has passed, and there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't. Vanilla Wizard 💙 09:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep The article is (completely predictably) being improved now that he has died. There's plenty of coverage about the work he did coming out, and as countless others have said, the article isn't in the same state as when it was nominated. To even have nominated an article of someone just as they die without expecting the article to rapidly change is, put simply, unwise. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep my belief is that brooks notability has increased significantly since the article was previously deleted in 2018, and therefore the article should be kept. for example, he published his book Against the Web: A Cosmopolitan Answer to the New Right earlier this year (2020), he started a program on
Lula da Silva and Marianne Williamson to name a few. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Nothing to do with his death and good taste; the article has numerous sources. Any deletion of this page would be another attempt by Wikipedia's right-wing leadership to silence leftist commentators (see Hasan Piker, Kyle Kulinski, etc...). NDACFan (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable individual. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An influential voice of American left, Bacus15 (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has more sources than most on Wikipedia. --The Vital One (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2018 is two years ago. This person has made himself a name in the political discourse in a really big way since then. Therefore he absolutely is encyclopediacly relevent. We can argue about some sources missing though. -- Martin Erhardt (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2020 (CEST)
Snow Keep Article has been significantly improved since nom and meets
Say Hi! (talk)) 13:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Per many of the arguments stated above, which I will not try to reiterate in alternative prose. Added to that, I've seen articles about virtual no-ones written atrociously which never get a Delete tag put on them. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appears to be sufficient RS coverage to build an article: Variety[1], Fox News[2], Jacobin[3], Independent[4], Metro[5].
talk) 14:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This article has plenty of sources, he has been discussed by and worked with numerous notable figures such as
Cornell West, Ana Kasparian, and more, he had a large hand in freeing the aforementioned Lula from political prison, has written two books, and was a very notable political commentator on the left. He is more than notable enough to have a Wikipedia page for. If Jacob Wohl can have a Wikipedia page for committing fraud in the name of Donald Trump, then Michael Brooks can have a page for all of the accomplishments I just listed. The end. Windrays (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - meets GNG Spiderone 15:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been greatly improved since yesterday and possibly meets GNG. HandIsNotNookls (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep — per GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:25, 21 July 2020 (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.