Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Masciotra

:{{la|David Masciotra}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Masciotra Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|David Masciotra}})

Promotional article with no evidence of notability. All the references were written by himself! Gbawden (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The article isn't remotely promotional. It consists of two perfectly neutral, objective sentences stating who he is and the subjects of three works he's written. He did make the common mistake, in the case of a subject's written and online works, of citing the works themselves rather than independent reliable sources for purposes of WP:V. Largoplazo (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment There's an awful lot of material online by Masciotra, and an awful lot of profiles of him{{emdash}}on the websites of the numerous publications for which he's written, so the contribute nothing to WP:N. The only discussion of him I've found so far has amounted to scathing criticism over something he wrote for Salon. No clear signs of WP:N yet. Even so, I'm not done searching, but I'm depositing this comment here for the time being for consideration by others, for what it's worth. Largoplazo (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  
• Comment The notability criticism is fair, but given the myriad bozos from the NFL, MLB, NBA...who have entries in WP, the notability criterion is a weak one on which to hinge an entry. An author/journalist with publications from legitimate sources seems notably legitimate.
• FYI, notability, as explained at WP:N, isn't a quibble, it's a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Largoplazo (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  
• Comment Cornerstone sounds like a weasel word. Entries for washed-up professional athletes and aspiring celebrities seem far less notable
• I can't imagine what strikes you as "weaselly" about it, because I wasn't stretching a point or waving my hands, I was explaining to you something of the criteria that go into these decisions, based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (though maybe you think those are also "weasel words"), in contrast to how things "seem" to you based on your personal sense of what the word means. As for pointing at other articles, well, maybe their subjects do meet the notability guidelines; or maybe they also qualify for deletion. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Largoplazo (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  
• Fair enough. I've replaced a few self-referential citations with citations by third parties.
• Keep, the refs check out. Szzuk (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delete We can keep a writer under WP:CREATIVE if his works get coverage, but I am not finding reviews of David Masciotra's books, or published INDEPTH consideration of them in the years since publication. We can also keep an individual who generates WP:SIGCOV in the form of multiple profiles of him that are INDEPENDENT and INDEPTH. The problem here is that while Masciotra has written many articles and several books, neither he nor the books has generated WP:SIGCOV that I can find. I am always willing to change an iVote if someone comes up with solid sources, feel free to ping me to reconsider if someone does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

::[https://consequenceofsound.net/2015/10/metallica-33-13-by-david-masciotra/ This looks OK] I seem to remember seeing several of this quality by checking the refs in the article. Szzuk (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

::*There is a review of the Mellencamp book on a Cincinnati public radio station, and one in the Journal of Indiana History. Two book reviews, neither in a publication of much note, do not suffice to make the Mellencamp book a notable work. Which is what we need to keep under WP:AUTHOR 3. Nor does the one brief review of his liner notes make the liner note a notable work. And I can find no others. Nor any profiles. It is just not enough. The fact that these sources "check out" is good, but we would need several more similar to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

::::You haven't mentioned the ref I linked to? Szzuk (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

:::*I assure you that I checked all references on the page before I wrote my iVote. I also searched JSTOR and searched books for both "Masciotra, david" and "David Masciotra." He gets surprisingly few citations in other people's books, and there were no hits showing that other authors engage with his work. To be sure, gbooks is not perfect, it scans random pages. But when an intellectual or author is having an impact, you get hits along the lines :In his book on Springstein, Masciotra argues that. That is the sort of thing that supports notability. Or reviews, but the sole review in JSTOR was the the Indiana History journal. Or profiles. I would be happy to rethink, but I cannot find sources and the ones on the page are just not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Insufficient depth of coverage to address WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.