Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Kotsko (2nd nomination)

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. asilvering (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kotsko

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Last AfD was 7 years ago and closed with no consensus. Since then, there have been no secondary sources written that indicate this person's notability. While he is an author, his books aren't really notable either. Please discuss. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kotsko has not gained in relevance in the years since the first AfD; back then, some editors argued for keeping the article b/c its subject might become notable. It was a weird argument, and it hasn't panned out. Note how self-referential and promotional the references are. I count around 10 references to Kotsko's blog, e.g. him writing about himself. I suspect some serious lack of NPOV among the editors @Mothomsen03 and @Jtkingsley. Delete. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess, for the following reasons. (I have been called to this discussion due to having started the article in 2013, although in the meantime I've pretty much come around to "let's just not have any BLPs at all if we can help it". Anyway.) Kotsko is notable, if at all, for his writing. And indeed he has authored multiple books that meet the first criterion of WP:NBOOK, namely that they have been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Specifically: Awkwardness was reviewed in The New Inquiry and discussed in depth in Critical Studies in Television (Sage); Creepiness has been reviewed in Critical Inquiry (U of C) and analyzed in depth in Consumption Markets & Culture (T&F); The Prince of This World has reviewed in Theory & Event (JHU Press) and Philosophy in Review; Zizek and Theology has been reviewed in New Blackfriars (Cambridge University Press) and in the International Journal of Systematic Theology (Cambridge University Press); Neoliberalism's Demons has been reviewed in Political Theology (T&F) and is the subject of at least five pages of close examination in Maxwell Kennel's Postsecular History (Springer Nature); The Politics of Redemption has been the subject of reviews in Anglican Theological Review and Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology. (For most of these there are certainly more, but I'm stopping at two.) Now you may argue that notability is not transitive and therefore this significant coverage of Kotsko's various works does not constitute significant coverage of him for GNG purposes. That's a plausible argument and if it carries the day, we will presumably want to split the existing article into stubs on each of his individual books, and dabbify the page to point to those book-specific articles. Of course each of those new articles will need to have some information about the book's author, so we will have actually just multiplied our BLP and maintenance issues. And since notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page, and the resulting stubs are unlikely to be built into substantial articles in the near term, we will likely soon find that the reader and the project would be better served by merging these stubs into a single article on Adam Kotsko, as NBOOK itself suggests. Given that such an outcome leaves us back exactly where we started, WP:NOTBURO suggests that we should just keep the article now and save ourselves the hassle. -- Visviva (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews brought by Visviva (which I have AGF'd). Seems to meet WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except none of the article is actually based on any of the book reviews mentioned, just citations of the subject's personal blog. 2404:4408:476B:4500:A5FF:76BD:1588:2591 (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject is notable then the article can be improved using the sources that have been brought. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that hasn't happened even since the first AfD in 2017 because the subject isn't actually notable (reviews in specialist journals carry very little weight, as noted in the previous AfD) and as a result no one cares to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's standards. It just continues to exist for the subject's benefit, written by the subject and/or people close to them (i.e., at Shimer/North Central) using sources from the subject's personal blog and other completely unreliable citations. I predict that if the article passes this second AfD it will just be nominated again in the future when someone else notices that it is entirely based on unreliable sources. 2404:4408:476B:4500:E867:645B:3954:A301 (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to improve it, though gutting articles during an active AfD is often disruptive to the process. I don't agree that reviews in specialist journals don't count, surely they are the best way of assessing reception in the specific field. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the subject of this article. I want to clarify that I have never touched it or asked anyone to edit it on my behalf. It is based on a page from a wiki for Shimer College, which was created without my knowledge or input, by an alum I have never met, who has no apparent familiarity with my writing. I agree that it is of very low quality, and if the community decides to delete it, I will understand. Adam Kotsko (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The "Theory and Event" and "Philosophy in Review" citations above are critical reviews of his book. The rest is gravy. We have enough to pass author notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have paged through all of the umpty-dozen revisions in the article history since the last AfD was closed in 2017. It does not appear that a cleanup tag (other than a sentence-level tag) was placed on the article at any point during that time. Even supposing that AfD was an appropriate way to address article quality issues (it isn't, not at all), if that's the actual concern then it's a little weird to go directly to AfD (again) without even asking for cleanup.
FWIW I do agree that the article has a WP:BLPSELFPUB #5 issue in its current state. That would seem best addressed through expansion -- but BLP is a serious matter and I am unlikely to be a participant in that work, so although I stand by the remainder of my comment I have stricken my "keep" above. -- Visviva (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection: draftify. Although there doesn't seem to be any serious question of article-worthiness, a BLPSELFPUB violation should not just hang out indefinitely in mainspace. The necessary expansion work can be done just as well in draftspace, if anyone is so inclined. -- Visviva (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No dispute that he passes NAUTHOR, draftification is pointless for any article that isn’t new. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say draftify. The article has potential, but leaving it out there the way it is now reflects poorly on the subject and Wikipedia. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we have a WP:AUTHOR pass by way of multiple reviews of multiple books. I have trimmed the article into a more acceptable state. XOR'easter (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2024 (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.