Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Washington

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. Owen× ☎ 13:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rogat Loeb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article only contains 1 source and makes lots of uncited claims. Not finding coverage to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, California, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As I indicated to the wikipedia editor who originally asked some questions on the site, it was created by a fan. I then added some updates, for instance It said I was writing regularly for Huffington Post. They published maybe 100 articles, but I'm not currently writing so I changed it to past tense. Part of the challenges is that I left writing for 12 years to run two nonprofits I founded where I wasn't able to write political pieces without making them politically vulnerable. So there are a ton of articles about me if you search "Paul Rogat Loeb" in Google or another search engine. But not all of them have the updated information because most are before 2012. So I could go through various statements in the wikisource and add links, but it would be time consuming. And there aren't public numbers on say how many copies I've sold, though there are probably articles among those for instance covering my lectures, that mention how many were sold at that time the articles were written.

  So that's why I linked to the website.

  Can you suggest how best to proceed without spending endless hours, like searching every publication and creating a separate link? I really value Wikipedia and would like to have that listing remain.

  Thanks Paul Rogat Loeb PaulLoeb (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did some edits and added a dozen sources and can add more later. As mentioned I took a break from public writing to run two nonprofits where I couldn't write, so most of the articles on my are older. But if you do a search a ton will come up and I can add a few more PaulLoeb (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete of the 13 sources in the article, source 4 and 5 are listings of the book for sale thus not WP:RS, source 6 is a pr news source of the award listing thus not SIGCOV, sources 3, 7 and 9 are interviews thus not independent, source 8 is a short paragraph in huffpost about him as a contibutor thus not independent, sources 10 and 11 arethe subject giving tedtalks thus not independent RS, source 12 is a paragraph in an about us page for one of the non profits the subject has founded thus not independent RS and source 13 doesn't mention them at all. Source 1 I haven't got access to, but of the remaining source NONE are sigcov in independent RS. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry. I'm not a wikipedia expert. I'm a journalist who's written for almost every newspaper in the US. As mentioned, a fan created the listing years ago. I then added some updates. I'm trying to link to credible sources, but after spending three hours trying to come up with the most salient links to satisfy your standards, I'm totally confused. I've done two Tedx talks, so I linked directly to the talks, which were posted by Tedx, not by me. How else am I supposed to verify that? I added links to to radio interviews on major stations and Networks like NPR. They're posted by the stations and networks, not by me.

  I searched Nautilus for their year by year postings of awards (their current site awards listings only go back two years), and found it on their PR wire that they released that year. It's an official announcement by an official group of their award, so seems legitimate. I spent 12 years running nonprofits that I founded, so I linked to their archived webpages that showed me as the founder. How else should I show that?

  AARP Bulletin has the the largest circulation of any magazine in the US, so I linked to an interview they did with me (they also published a book expert I could link to). Studs Terkel was one the most famous interviewers for decades so I linked to one of the four interviews I did with him on various books. At the time I wrote for Huffington Post it was one of the top 50 websites in the world, so I linked to the articles I wrote for them. I linked to my publishers which are major publishers.

  I spent three hours trying to come up with the most credible links and really don't understand what I'm supposed to do to fix this besides becoming a Wikipedia expert. Is a newspaper feature on me that gives background plus interviews me better than one that just interviews me? Should I local add stories about my visiting campuses or lecturing? I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I feel like I tried in good faith to meet the requests for citations with highly credible sources and somehow every one of them is being dismissed.

  I'm happy to try and fix this, but this response is very frustrating. PaulLoeb (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Interviews are not considered independent for determining WP:Notability and tedtalks by you even posted on tedtalks youtube account are still not independent as they are you giving talks. OUr articles must summarise significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject (in this case articles about you) in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Interviews/talks by you and organisational listings for organisations you have worked for/with are primary sources thus do not contribute to WP:Notability. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I really don't understand discarding coverage by some of the largest media outlets in America, including the single largest-circulation magazine (AARP Bulletin) , major newspapers, and major broadcast outlets like C-SPAN and NPR . They covered the book through print or broadcast interviews because that's how they cover political nonfiction. Unless a publication does a profile where they don't interview me, I don't understand what other kinds of coverage would even exist that I could link to. I've not added links to reviews, of which there are many, because that would be self-promotion, although if you go to my www.paulloeb.org website you'll see the breadth of coverage.

  In terms of "Significant" coverage, I just Googled "Paul Rogat Loeb." and it came up with 170 cases of coverage. Some are just bookstore listings, but that doesn't include all the coverage where I didn't use my middle name Rogat and am referenced just as Paul Loeb. It also doesn't include the majority of my coverage in the 1980s and 1990s, which didn't get digitalized in ways that pop up on searches. For instance in your bio, @WCQuidditch mentions the John Seigenthaler Wikipedia hoax. Seigenthaler actually interviewed me for his nationally syndicated PBS show three times and was a wonderful man, but it doesn't come up in the searches, because they didn't digitally archive them.

  You can do the same search and see the results,

  The search did turn up an Encyclopedia.com entry, although most of it is at least 25 years out of date.

  https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/loeb-paul-rogat-1952

  If there's something useful I can do to easily correct the profile (I didn't create the initial version, just updated and made a couple corrections, leaving the original text unless it was wrong, I'm happy to do it, but I'd need to get clear directions. PaulLoeb (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Paul, you made reference to a "newspaper feature on me that gives background..." If you have links for articles of that sort, that would be the sort of coverage that could be helpful. I was hoping you might have such articles linked on your website, but didn't find any. Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks much for the constructive suggestion.

  Part of the challenge is that i stopped writing to run two election related nonprofits that I founded from 2012 to 2022 where I had to be completely politically neutral so stopped writing and doing interviews. So most interviews and profiles are older and seem not to be digitized. I looked through some paper clips in my files and then searched for the interviews from Atlanta Journal Constitution, San Francisco Chronicle, Dallas Morning News and Philadelphia Inquirer. But just couldn't find any links, although as mentioned, i found the ones from the AARP interview, C-Span, and NPR, plus the TedX talks.

  There's is a bio from WGBH which is a major PBS station

  https://www.wgbh.org/people/paul-loeb?utm_source=chatgpt.com

  There are some old reviews, like this from the New York Times

  https://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/19/books/village-activists.html

  Or old articles like this from Los Angeles Times

  https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-jan-14-me-54036-story.html

  I do have links to one I wrote last week that got syndicated and picked up by Miami Herald, Minnesota Star Tribune and nearly 30 other papers, and could add some of these, but not sure that fits because they'd be considered primary sources.

  https://www.pressreader.com/similar/281706915634354

  https://www.startribune.com/opinion

  Really appreciate your trying to solve this but it does seem that the longer profiles just weren't digitized. PaulLoeb (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I was astonished to discover that this article had been nominated for Deletion - as opposed to being in need of cleanup & better sourcing - on the grounds that Paul Rogat Loeb supposedly doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY.

I have known about Paul Loeb and his work for a many years, and simply put, there is no question whatsoever as to his very real notability in the realm of civic engagement and social activism. Along with a great many other listeners, I heard him on public radio stations talking about the issues addressed in his books many times back in the 1980s & 90s. (And yes, I own one of his books.)

But you don't have to take my word for it. Paul and his work are very well known and highly regarded by any number of luminaries, such as Bill Moyers, Jonathan Kozol, Kurt Vonnegut, and Susan Sontag - who said that he was "a national treasure." Moreover, he was interviewed no less than FOUR times over the years by the reknowned oral historian Studs Terkel for his long-form radio program. And it's no accident that the AARP magazine turned to Mr. Loeb for an article titled "The Change Agent - Interview With Paul Rogat Loeb".

Furthermore, it's not just liberal-minded folks who endorse his efforts that regard him as a major figure in that realm. The conservative National Association of Scholars has also taken note of his endeavors, in a 2018 article titled "Paul Loeb's Campus Takeover".

In short, it seems to me that, even without the kind of profiles we would like to be able to link to, Paul Loeb clearly meets the standard for Notability as outlined right up front at WP:AUTHOR: "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers..." Anomalous+0 (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the examples I've cited are only the tip of the iceberg, as it were. They serve to illustrate the wide esteem for Paul Loeb and his work, which is manifested in the hundreds of times he has been invited to speak and give presentations at colleges around the country, as well as the countless radio interviews he has given over the years. The underlying basis for all of that, of course, is his body of written work, from his five books to the hundreds of articles he has written for a wide range of publications.

I also want to say that I am well aware that the article as it stands is clearly in need of cleanup in various respects, in order to bring it into greater alignment with Wikipedia expectations for biographies. (And I am more than willing to work on that myself.) That, however, is an entirely separate issue from the question of notability. Anomalous+0 (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As a follow-on to what I wrote above, here's a little more info to take into consideration. I looked for Paul Loeb's books on Google Scholar and discovered that there were stats for how many times each book has been cited:

Hope in hard times: America's peace movement and the Reagan era
PR Loeb - 1987 - academia.edu - Cited by 36

Generation at the crossroads: Apathy and action on the American campus
PR Loeb - 1994 - books.google.com - Cited by 272

Soul of a citizen: Living with conviction in a cynical time
PR Loeb - 1999 - books.google.com - Cited by 255

Soul of a citizen: Living with conviction in challenging times
PR Loeb - 2010 - books.google.com - Cited by 61

The impossible will take a little while: A citizen's guide to hope in a time of fear
PR Loeb - 2014 - Hachette UK - Cited by 64

The impossible will take a little while: Perseverance and hope in troubled times
P Loeb - 2014 - Basic Books - Cited by 12
Anomalous+0 (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as article is well sourced, and for the stats of the books that he published shown above. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article have been improved since nomination. A couple of good third party sources. WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete First off, Loeb as a person does not pass WP:BIO, as he himself has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, as most publications about him are basic speaker/event/author bios. There are pieces at aarp.org and binghamton.edu, but even combined these are insufficient. The subject gets closer to WP:AUTHOR, but, from what I can find, insufficient reputable sources have extensively reviewed or discussed his work. His works have been discussed at npr.org, and wfmt.com, and have also been cited, but it is too sporadic to establish that his collective body of work is significant or well-known. It is close, but not quite enough. I also ran "Paul Rogat Loeb", "Paul R. Loeb" and "Paul Loeb" through the GRel Source Engine, Reliable Source Engine, and Wikipedia Reference Search (see WP:RSSE), with and without "allintitle:", and Loeb certainly created a lot of opinion pieces (including op-eds), did a lot of public speaking and gave a lot of interviews (including TV appearances), but this doesn't establish WP:AUTHOR. The reason is that this notability guideline is about the impact of the writing, not the subject's media presence and visibility as a pundit. There is limited notable reception of his written works. Also, while he has received Nautilus awards, these do not carry the same mainstream recognition as, say, the Pulitzer or National Book Award. One of the reasons I choose "Weak delete" over "Delete" is a short bio at abc.net.au that states Loeb's "writing has been cited in congressional debates and covered by the Associated Press, United Press International, and in publications in the U.S. and around the globe". The article being well-sourced, in and of itself, does not establish notability. If three separate references (e.g. The New York Times, BBC, Reuters) state that Loeb is a human being, and we include "he is a human," then being human - with great sources - (still) does not make the subject worthy of notice. --62.166.252.159 (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep With the two The Washington Post publications that were recently added, I'm changing my position. It should now pass WP:GNG. --62.166.252.159 (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article passes WP:GNG now. Agent 007 (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per nomination, I mean keep because I agree with the editors who want to not have this deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 (talk • contribs)

the nomination was for delete. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I was WP:CANVASSed here on my talk page, so the closer should weight that appropriately (and User:Anomalous+0: in future, please do not do that) but anyway I found and added to the article enough published reviews of Loeb's books to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, I want to thank User:David Eppstein for the time and effort he put into finding and formatting all of those links to book reviews that he added to the bibliography. Big thumbs up, nice work.

I also do want to say something about the note I left on his talk page. I had by good fortune come across his comment in an AFD for writer Aziz Choudry, and I could see that he was knowledgable about AFD procedures and Notability. When I wrote the note, I did my best to choose my wording carefully so as not to run afoul of WP:Canvassing: "I'm hoping you can find a few minutes to take a look at Paul Loeb's (greatly improved) article and share your thoughts, whatever they may be, in the AFD".

I suppose it might have been better to ask him to simply look at the article and offer his assessment of what improvements it needed to pass muster, and left it at that. But I felt like that would be more of an imposition, so I didn't do that. Anomalous+0 (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think in general it's preferable just not to inform individual editors about AfDs, except maybe in cases of a mass ping to all contributors to a previous AfD on the same subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2025 (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.