Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Uscinski

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. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Uscinski

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

Appears to be an advertisement for a writer with no evidence of any notability. No independent refs at all. Searches reveal social media sites and book sales sites - nothing more. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Uscinski has been quoted in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times among seemingly many other news outlets and has written for the Washington Post, LA Times, Newsweek, Vox, etc. His academic works has contributed greatly to our understanding of conspiracy theories. In fact, he is the US's leading scholar on the topic. He seems to meet all the standards of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jepalcovich (talk • contribs) 22:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI;ve added two mangled, been-years-since-I cited-anthing ref's from Gale. They're just reviews, though. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

——Added independent verifiable sources from Scientific American, New York Times and Washington Post among others. Also added reviews from independent scholarly sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jepalcovich (talk • contribs) 23:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsure if the claim being made for notability is WP:SCHOLAR or WP:FRINGE, but the deletion is WP:TNT. The article is low-quality and no amount of references to news articles (many of which appear to be references to his work, rather than to him personally) will improve the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the claim being made for notability is WP:SCHOLAR as the subject fits two of the seven criteria: 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources; and 7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. The subject need only fit one of the seven.

The article contains similar information and is similar in tone to other articles about public intellectuals. Velella's comment above is simply not true: google and google news searches reveal hundreds of independent sources and show clear notability. Subject has been interviewed hundreds of times by top American and world news outlets. Independent sources have been added about the subject - sources refer to him as America's Conspiracy Theory Expert. Jepalcovich (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

note jepalcovich created the thing.Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the added citations, the number of news outlets who consider Uscinski as an expert certainly lends itself towards his having "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." Ceronomus (talk) 05:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:AUTHOR; multiple published books with non-trivial reviews. Sample review from Political Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell). Date: September 1, 2015:

American Conspiracy Theories by Joseph E. Uscinski and Joseph M. Parent. New York, Oxford University Press, 2014. 240 pp. Cloth, $99.00; paper, $29.95.

Conspiracy theories have found true believers at all times in all parts of the world, but the United States in particular has a long history of persistent rumors and full-fledged conspiracy theories spanning from colonial times to the early twenty-first century. (...) This is an innovative book that illuminates our understanding of American conspiracy theories based on empirical evidence. I recommend the book for both undergraduate and graduate courses and will use it in a seminar on social and popular movements and conspiracy theories.

As of 17 May, the state of the article is acceptable: link. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple reliably-published reviews for multiple published books should be enough for WP:AUTHOR, and he also got major media attention for the dog story. The current version of the article has WP:REFPUNCT issues but that's hardly a reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above as admin who declined speedyDlohcierekim (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2017 (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.