308:
for a page where they can advertise their books at
Knowledge. At the very least the book section reads like vanity advertising for an obscure product and should be trimmed. To a lesser extent the section on his podcast/self publishing career is needless promotion as well, it does little but cite self published and primary sources often by authors connected to the subject. Again it concerns me that if we are too permissive with promotion, every marginally notable blogger will be getting Knowledge puff pieces on their obscure books and blogs.
725:
there are references to freelance journalism but nothing that anchors him as a journalist, a podcast that is well short of record setting or ground breaking, and a book that has yet to show any meaningful impact on himself or the subject area. I think it toosoon for an article, but I would prefer since this has been CSD'd and AFD'd repeatedly to have a future version reviewed by unbiased eyes and moved out to the main space when he is firmly anchored as notable and meets the criteria for inclusion.
664:: as I said on the talk page last month, the article is very borderline. I looked last year for sources to see if I could create an article, and didn't find enough that I felt the notability guidelines were met. Even now, after someone else did create the article, a fifth of its (limited) references being Singal himself is not
307:
with the remaining segments dedicated to his podcast and obscure book when neither are notable. If we give everyone who gets a page a large promotional section to their book, even if it was not commercially successful or notable in reception, then surely every self published author would be clamoring
491:
is met, Criterion one falls so short Singalās biography and self published sites have to makeup much of the article, the controversy articles describe that single event but little else. Criterion 3 and 5 is failed, we lack secondary sources and worse yet, many are not independent either from people
724:
This is an article that keeps coming back, and while it comes back different every time it also lends itself to the suspicion that there may be other factors at play here (such as the fan base) trying to get an article for the author here. Taken by the skeletal frame of the article GNG is not met,
425:
His book was what you held as entitling him to an article however itās very obscure and instead of qualifying him it is receiving promotion. Is it his publication prominence as muckrack says heās had almost zero articles published in the last two years? Or is it merely a few primary sources from a
874:
This list intentionally does not include any of several gossipy one-off bits offering no more than recaps or hot takes of individual tweets or twitter spats involving Singal, which can also be found by simple Google Search. Between trans writing, a book, and a podcast, notability is sufficiently
594:
If you believe that is good, if you can give examples that is even better. Instead of taking it on faith, tell us how he is notable? I canāt see signs of any publication notability, and the book is not notable, so surely it must be more than the primary sources from one
750:
as he has significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Additionally, the idea that this is a fan page is somewhat ridiculous as a significant portion of the article is devoted to criticism of the subject by LBTQ publications and activists for his perceived
687:
The subject has established notability and significant coverage is cited and there is more coverage found in the search engines. However, no honorary mentions or awards in mass media, nor any demonstration of impact and major contributions to his industry.
260:
A claim to notability is a book he published, however a search of bestseller lists shows the book did not reach them and holds about 100,000# in book sales ranking with
Bookmarks noting it had a tepid reception.
471:
is met. An AfD from years ago on a much shorter article and book sales numbers are irrelevant. There is no need to worry about some sort of precedent being set when we already have GNG and the like to guide us.
220:
527:
I would be grateful if you could enlighten me as to what writing? Muckrack shows minimal publications in the last two years. As for the book, which reviews? There are many non notable books with mixed reviews
466:
is about whether a person deserves an article separate from some other notable event, which doesn't apply here. Between commentary on the
Atlantic article, commentary on his writing, and reviews of his book,
390:
does not really apply here. There is RS coverage spanning 4 years and several areas. Much of the information mentioned in the nomination (e.g. the sales figures and reception of his book) are irrelevant to
492:
who are related to his disputes, or his editor from Reason. What we have to build from is either limited to the incident or self published or not independent. It does not seem a foundation for an article.
786:: While the article could probably use some consolidation to achieve a more encyclopedic tone, Singal and/or his works have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, to satisfy
88:
442:), and the remainder by authors who say they have social ties to him(Walker is said to be in arguments with him, Gillespie who wrote a promotional piece was according to muckrack his Reason editor
395:. The article that was deleted in 2017 was a single ten-word sentence, so the concerns raised in that deletion discussion don't have a lot of applicability here. Also, while not a reason to keep
181:
839:
277:
To conclude I donāt see what has changed from last time which held an overwhelming consensus for delete apart from a decline in the subjects publication prominence and a
633:
214:
647:
619:
345:
252:
83:
128:
113:
257:
In the interspersing time the subject does not appear to have gained notability, going from being a Senior Editor in NYMag, to self published.
668:, and it puts a cap on how detailed the article is able to be, but I've seen other articles at about this level judged to meet GNG, so...
61:
443:
267:
The final claim to his notability is that he was involved in a journalism controversy during 2018 which CJR briefly summarized here
270:. However it appears to have died down and he has no longer obtained publications on the subject making it appear to be a case of
264:. I worry that if we gave the 100,000th top book a page, we would have to give every obscure book ranking better a page as well.
154:
149:
528:
262:
884:
778:
760:
734:
716:
697:
677:
653:
639:
625:
604:
589:
575:
553:
539:
520:
501:
480:
454:
408:
378:
317:
297:
158:
108:
101:
68:
17:
530:
out there. And most sold much better. In fact, many best seller list books did not get a
Knowledge page? Should give them one?
369:
to contribute their wisdom to this discussion. Apologies if my grammar is poor my friends, English is not my first language.
235:
817:
141:
202:
122:
118:
417:. Indeed in some ways it compared favorably as it did not have large sections dedicated to book promotion. I ask,
903:
40:
268:
65:
196:
799:
600:
571:
535:
497:
450:
374:
313:
293:
57:
192:
899:
880:
36:
861:
413:
Comment, his previously deleted article was not ten sentences, it was essentially this but without the
430:
that died down. If the later is all we have then our article is possibly less viable than last times.
773:
596:
567:
531:
493:
446:
370:
364:
309:
289:
242:
826:
730:
693:
512:
228:
516:
866:
791:
756:
747:
712:
585:
549:
404:
325:
145:
97:
53:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
898:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
876:
434:(his own blog has to provide biographical detail as he is too obscure for a paper of record
350:
282:
707:: he has a popular podcast, has bylined in several major publications, and has a book out.
673:
563:
474:
463:
427:
420:
414:
387:
304:
286:
278:
271:
208:
251:
This biographical page was previously deleted due to not meeting notability requirements
844:
769:
726:
689:
787:
743:
488:
468:
544:
This article is not about Singal's book. Whether the book is notable is irrelevant.
752:
708:
581:
545:
400:
399:, it's worth noting the article is currently linked from 17 other mainspace pages.
339:
137:
74:
562:
Is he notable then? He has minimal publications and no notability that could meet
175:
813:
392:
357:
322:
I would encourage all parties involved in this current iteration of the article
835:
804:
669:
332:
281:
event that died down. Apart from a brief critical mention in CJR I do not see
440:
768:- the article has issues, but the sources indicate that the subject meets
852:
435:
437:
511:. - per reasons already stated above by crossroads and Colin M -
894:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
303:
As an addendum I am concerned that most of the article is
432:
Also many of those 17 sources you note are self published
445:). They are primary sources and often part of the story.
171:
167:
163:
794:. To add to sources already in the article, consider:
227:
566:. Even his biography has to quote his own websites.
89:
Articles for deletion/Jesse Singal (2nd nomination)
580:Yes, I believe he is. That's why I !voted "keep".
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
906:). No further edits should be made to this page.
646:Note: This discussion has been included in the
632:Note: This discussion has been included in the
618:Note: This discussion has been included in the
634:list of Journalism-related deletion discussions
241:
8:
648:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
346:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Jesse Singal
253:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Jesse Singal
129:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
620:list of People-related deletion discussions
439:the podcast source is a link to his Patreon
645:
631:
617:
81:
840:"Who's Allowed to Tell Trans Stories?"
487:With all due respect I donāt see how
7:
822:Review: A Bias Toward Easy Answers"
84:Articles for deletion/Jesse Singal
24:
798:Gordon, Jeremy (31 August 2021).
800:"The Rhetoric of Pop Psychology"
114:Introduction to deletion process
860:Hannam, Paddy (April 9, 2021).
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
885:00:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
862:"'Implicit bias is overhyped'"
779:05:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
761:02:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
69:09:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
1:
735:12:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
717:23:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
698:18:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
678:08:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
654:05:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
640:05:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
626:05:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
605:05:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
590:04:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
576:04:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
554:04:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
540:04:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
521:04:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
502:05:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
481:04:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
455:04:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
409:03:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
379:03:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
318:03:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
298:03:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
419:can you establish he meets
104:(AfD)? Read these primers!
923:
896:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
80:AfDs for this article:
344:and the editors from
102:Articles for deletion
827:Wall Street Journal
856:podcast coverage)
816:(11 April 2021).
662:Abstain / comment
656:
642:
628:
119:Guide to deletion
109:How to contribute
914:
871:
849:
838:(30 June 2018).
831:
809:
722:Delete and Salt:
479:
368:
361:
354:
343:
336:
329:
285:that could meet
246:
245:
231:
179:
161:
99:
34:
922:
921:
917:
916:
915:
913:
912:
911:
910:
904:deletion review
859:
834:
812:
797:
775:MrsSnoozyTurtle
473:
365:Johnpacklambert
362:
355:
348:
337:
330:
323:
188:
152:
136:
133:
96:
93:
78:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
920:
918:
909:
908:
890:
889:
888:
887:
877:--Animalparty!
875:demonstrated.
872:
857:
845:Slate Magazine
832:
810:
781:
763:
737:
719:
701:
700:
681:
680:
658:
657:
643:
629:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
557:
556:
524:
523:
505:
504:
484:
483:
457:
411:
381:
320:
249:
248:
185:
132:
131:
126:
116:
111:
94:
92:
91:
86:
79:
77:
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
919:
907:
905:
901:
897:
892:
891:
886:
882:
878:
873:
869:
868:
863:
858:
855:
854:
847:
846:
841:
837:
833:
829:
828:
823:
821:
820:The Quick Fix
815:
811:
807:
806:
801:
796:
795:
793:
789:
785:
782:
780:
777:
776:
771:
767:
764:
762:
758:
754:
749:
745:
741:
738:
736:
732:
728:
723:
720:
718:
714:
710:
706:
703:
702:
699:
695:
691:
686:
683:
682:
679:
675:
671:
667:
663:
660:
659:
655:
652:
649:
644:
641:
638:
635:
630:
627:
624:
621:
616:
606:
602:
598:
593:
592:
591:
587:
583:
579:
578:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
560:
559:
558:
555:
551:
547:
543:
542:
541:
537:
533:
529:
526:
525:
522:
518:
514:
510:
507:
506:
503:
499:
495:
490:
486:
485:
482:
478:
477:
470:
465:
461:
458:
456:
452:
448:
444:
441:
438:
436:
433:
429:
424:
422:
416:
412:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
389:
385:
382:
380:
376:
372:
366:
359:
352:
347:
341:
334:
327:
321:
319:
315:
311:
306:
302:
301:
300:
299:
295:
291:
288:
284:
280:
275:
273:
269:
265:
263:
258:
255:
254:
244:
240:
237:
234:
230:
226:
222:
219:
216:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
194:
191:
190:Find sources:
186:
183:
177:
173:
169:
165:
160:
156:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
134:
130:
127:
124:
120:
117:
115:
112:
110:
107:
106:
105:
103:
98:
90:
87:
85:
82:
76:
73:
71:
70:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
895:
893:
865:
851:
843:
825:
819:
814:Satel, Sally
803:
783:
774:
765:
751:transphobia.
739:
721:
704:
684:
665:
661:
651:
637:
623:
508:
475:
459:
431:
418:
396:
383:
326:Newimpartial
276:
266:
259:
256:
250:
238:
232:
224:
217:
211:
205:
199:
189:
138:Jesse_Singal
95:
75:Jesse_Singal
54:filelakeshoe
49:
47:
31:
28:
836:Pesca, Mike
351:E.M.Gregory
215:free images
805:The Nation
792:WP:NAUTHOR
748:WP:NAUTHOR
597:Freepsbane
568:Freepsbane
532:Freepsbane
494:Freepsbane
476:Crossroads
447:Freepsbane
371:Freepsbane
310:Freepsbane
290:Freepsbane
900:talk page
742:. Passes
727:TomStar81
690:Multi7001
283:WP:SIGCOV
37:talk page
902:or in a
853:The Gist
709:*Dan T.*
564:wp:BASIC
513:Pengortm
464:WP:BIO1E
428:wp:BIO1E
421:wp:BASIC
415:wp:BIO1E
388:wp:BIO1E
305:wp:BIO1E
287:WP:BASIC
279:wp:BIO1E
272:wp:BIO1E
182:View log
123:glossary
39:or in a
770:WP:NBIO
753:4meter4
685:Comment
582:Colin M
546:Colin M
401:Colin M
340:Colin M
221:WPĀ refs
209:scholar
155:protect
150:history
100:New to
867:Spiked
788:WP:GNG
744:WP:GNG
595:event.
489:WP:GNG
469:WP:GNG
397:per se
358:BigHaz
193:Google
159:delete
670:-sche
666:great
333:-sche
236:JSTOR
197:books
176:views
168:watch
164:links
16:<
881:talk
790:and
784:Keep
766:Keep
757:talk
746:and
740:Keep
731:Talk
713:talk
705:Keep
694:talk
674:talk
601:talk
586:talk
572:talk
550:talk
536:talk
517:talk
509:Keep
498:talk
460:Keep
451:talk
405:talk
393:WP:N
384:Keep
375:talk
314:talk
294:talk
229:FENS
203:news
172:logs
146:talk
142:edit
52:. ā
50:keep
850:(+
243:TWL
180:ā (
883:)
864:.
842:.
824:.
802:.
772:.
759:)
733:)
715:)
696:)
676:)
650:.
636:.
622:.
603:)
588:)
574:)
552:)
538:)
519:)
500:)
462:.
453:)
423:?
407:)
386:.
377:)
316:)
296:)
274:.
223:)
174:|
170:|
166:|
162:|
157:|
153:|
148:|
144:|
66:š±
64:)
60:/
879:(
870:.
848:.
830:.
818:"
808:.
755:(
729:(
711:(
692:(
672:(
599:(
584:(
570:(
548:(
534:(
515:(
496:(
449:(
403:(
373:(
367::
363:@
360::
356:@
353::
349:@
342::
338:@
335::
331:@
328::
324:@
312:(
292:(
247:)
239:Ā·
233:Ā·
225:Ā·
218:Ā·
212:Ā·
206:Ā·
200:Ā·
195:(
187:(
184:)
178:)
140:(
125:)
121:(
62:c
58:t
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.