Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Levitan

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Levitan

[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)

Wikipedia page is about a science journalist, he has been published in multiple notable publications. He looks like he is a fine writer and has a book out that looks very interesting. But I've been searching around and can't find anything that makes him notable enough for a Wikipedia page. The citations used here are just background ones that show he is writing for these notable places. He has done some interviews for his new book. How is this science journalist any different from any other science journalist? Wikipedia is not a personal website which is what this page looks like. Sgerbic (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 23:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 23:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR with multiple periodical reviews. His book "Not a Scientist" is held by over six hundred libraries: [1]. It has book reviews in The Irish Times [2], Nature [3], Nature Astronomy [4], Physics World [5], Chemistry World [6], Kirkus [7], and Publishers Weekly [8] [9]. And there is other coverage [10]. James500 (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment James500 you have just made a case for there to be a Wikipedia page for the book, but not the person. Sgerbic (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how WP:AUTHOR works. James500 (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be clear - A journalist who reports on the news will probably not have the notable citations to have a Wikipedia page. If they become a part of the news then they will gather the citations required. See Nina Burleigh, Brian Deer, Mary Roach to see how it this is done correctly. Sgerbic (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the author of a book is not merely a journalist who reports the news. He became something more than a journalist who reports the news the moment he published the book. To be clear, an author with that level of book reviews and library holdings is ipso facto notable for being an author with that level of book reviews and library holdings. James500 (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR per review of avalable sources on the book + journalism career. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His work has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and that makes him notable. --Michig (talk) 09:04, 7 October 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.