Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Read

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 delete and redirect to Gawker Media. The sources listed by The lorax are really only minimal and in-passing, not meeting WP:GNG. I am creating a redirect to Gawker Media as suggested by Masem. Randykitty (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Max Read

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Max Read JUST doesn't meet notability requirements, Being the editor in chief of a news company does not meet notability requirements. RetΔrtist (разговор) 23:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy as attack page. Hipocrite (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we reading the same article here? I dont understand how you could possibly construe this as an attack page, all the information in it is completely innocuous. Bosstopher (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because Gawker attacked Read as one of the "The 50 Least Important Writers of 2012". starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because the article takes a joke article as fact to try to defame a living person. Hipocrite (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Max Read should definitely sue the editor-in-chief of the site for failing to remove such defamatory content. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Publishing a joke article is very different than taking that joke article as fact to besmirch someone's reputation - I haven't checked, but will now - I doubt we mention that article anywhere else. Hipocrite (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        In hindsight, I probably should've added a quote highlighting the quality of the article. (I assumed the joke was known to the reader since why would a blog deprecate one of their staff writers?) I mean no ill will to Max at all as they've proved nothing but amiable in online conversations I've had.--DrWho42 (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd argue that the coverage from various reliable third-party references justify Read's notability. Given the size of the article, it is a stub worth expanding.--DrWho42 (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - shifted and hidden that Internet slang sentence to the Gawker article and how many sources are left? Ah, five. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet the projects threshold for notability. The references are casual name-drops in a story about another editor, snippets of twitter feeds and the like. We require in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources of the subject himself. Tarc (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gawker Media. Name is a searchable term, but the person fails GNG and/or BIO. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Masem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Masem. Ries42 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possible canvassing in /r/KotakuInAction on Reddit: Max Read article is being deleted on wikipedia.--DrWho42 (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the user directed people to not vote or participate --RetΔrtist (разговор) 06:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Reddit user xxXRetardistXxx is not you then?--DrWho42 (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorWho42 careful that you don't WP:OUTING anyone who has not admitted on WIkipedia to any off-site account. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint ah, okay! I've omitted their the link then.--DrWho42 (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint, DoctorWho42: WP:OUTING doesn't mention linking to offsite accounts, just personal information (real name etc). What am I missing here? ekips 39 23:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - He's the editor-in-chief of one of the most highly trafficked websites in the United States and has been featured in multiple reliable sources.The lorax (talk) 06:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By what metric do you measure "most highly trafficked websites in the United States", and can you also provide an example of a source where the subject is "featured" ? Tarc (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being ranked 118 in the US according to Alexa.com would seem to quantify Gawker as being one of the most highly trafficked websites. Read also has been featured in the New York Observer, Time, Columbia Journalism Review, Daily Caller etc... The lorax (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Evidently notable per WP:NOTABILITY for journalists. Royal Mate1 00:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, that would be an argument that the subject meets WP:JOURNALIST? Could you expand upon which of the 4 criteria you feel the subject meets? Tarc (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:18, 13 January 2015 (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.