Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Mittell

:{{la|Jason Mittell}} ([{{fullurl:Jason Mittell|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Mittell}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

The only third-party source is an article primarily about the Middlebury College Wikipedia ban (two paragraphs relay Mittell's views on that matter); no third-party sources attest to his notability as an academic, and this person has requested on the article talk page that the article be deleted because he did not think he was notable. His identity as the one asking for deletion is confirmed by a new article mention his request, http://mondediplo.com/2009/05/15wikipedia , which also discuss why we have an article on Mittell even though he doesn't actually meet the notability threshold: namely, because he has been in the news for Wikipedia-related matters. (I PRODded this article and it was contested.) ragesoss (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

:Comment People are either notable or they aren't. They don't get to decide for themselves. Drawn Some (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

::Technically, Mittell is not notable. We only have an article about him because of some positions he took vis-a-vis Wikipedia and the Middlebury College story; almost the entire article is sourced from his faculty bio, and the one news source does give any indication that he is notable. He doesn't think he is notable, and I agree. But it's not so clear-cut that people are either notable or not; there are many borderline cases, and there are lots of articles that don't meet the letter of the notability guidelines but we nonetheless let stick around. In cases like this, when the subject points out that he doesn't think he is notable--and he is technically right--it makes sense to delete.--ragesoss (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

:Comment The note on the talk page attributed to the subject of the piece was posted two years ago. Since then there has been another book published; it is not clear to me that his self-assessment from two years ago should be what this decision is based on. The PROD, posted earlier today, indicated that editor(s) who objected to it should go ahead and edit it - posting an AfD a few hours later seems rushed to me. Also, there's no indication that the reason his page exists is the Wikipedia related content - nor should that content be a disqualifier, when there are other notable achievements. Tvoz/talk 07:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Thanks to Tvoz, the article has improved somewhat. I still don't think the sources technically meet the thresholds of either the general notability criterion or Wikipedia:Notability (academics), but the subject now seems fine with his article existing so I'm happy to let the page be.--ragesoss (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

::Well, I don't think it's particularly strong either - as I said, it "may be improvable". I guess we can see if anything more surfaces. Tvoz/talk 19:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. In marginal cases I give much weight to the wishes of the LP. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC).
• Keep. Surprisingly Prof. Mittel is quite notable. It doesn't look like he is from this page, but it needs improved. His notability is within the field of television studies where he is likely going to be the next editor of a key journal, has written two very well received books. He's not just an up-and coming scholar, but has moved onto that to become one of the central people to talk to and about in regards to television. The article just needs citations and improvement. --Buridan (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, Genre and television: From cop shows to cartoons in American culture, currently in more than 320 libraries worldwide according to [http://www.worldcat.org WorldCat].--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly meets WP:PROF with book publication by major academic press.--ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Week Keep One book by OUP, though not yet it many libraries as it has just been published; several by Routledge, a major publisher in his subject of media studies, with many more holdings. a number of articles, and book chapters, including a chapter in Cambridge companion to narrative, a standard reference. However, the so-called reviews listed for his publications are descriptions, not evidence of notability, as one is from his own web page, the other a publisher's blurb. In this particular instance, there is particular reason not to give any credence to the desires of the subject, as he is known to not have a NPOV on the matter. DGG (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

: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.