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. I see a consensus to Keep this article and no longer any support for Deletion beyond the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem Demsas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Lacks direct and in-depth coverage in independent secondary sources. Self-auhtored articles are not enough to prove her notability. Gheus (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Multiple references show significant, not trivial, coverage in independent secondary sources, discussing her early life (references 1-5), professional career and her views and contributions to the discussion of the housing crisis. An important notability factor (WP:AUTHOR) relies on the following: The person's work (or works) has won significant critical attention. Her book has received has significant critical attention, including book reviews in major sites including Vox and Bloomberg News (ref 9), which stated that Demsas "has distinguished herself within the supply-side camp." Her overall work has led to multiple high profile interviews, including on Bloomberg (ref. 9), NPR (ref. 11) and Ezra Klein's NYTimes interview (ref. 12), indicating her work has had significant attention. Per WP:NAUTHOR, references 8 & 9 show she is known for originating a significant new concept, further enhancing her notability. Included in the article were her opinions on the housing crisis; there is no Wikipedia injunction against discussing a subject's views. There is no Wikipedia injunction against using the subject's self-authored published works in reputable publications to verify the information presented. The references discussed above were used to verify Demsas' views, not to establish notability. And, only 4/23 references even fall within that purview. In brief: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (Wikipedia:Notability (people)). The article meets all criteria.

I note that the first reviewer (Ipigott]) did not see a problem with this article, and later removed a tag stating that this article may not achieve notability, claiming that "del tag - no longer applicable." Mwinog2777 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was because additional pertinent work had been carried out on the article.--Ipigott (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree that she meets WP:AUTHOR. A search of Newspapers.com shows a lot of columnists in other newspapers basing columns on articles by Demsas in The Atlantic and critiquing what she has written. So far I've found examples in The Indianapolis Star, The Herald-Palladium, Sun Journal (Lewiston, Maine), and The San Francisco Examiner, by 5 different columnists. I'll try to add them to the article. (Before searching, I had thought this might be a case of TOOSOON, as she joined The Atlantic only 3 years ago, in 2022. But it's clear that she very quickly had a big impact.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think added refs are examples of WP:SIGCOV. Quotes of her work in independent secondary sources are helpful to expand the article (and I'm thankful to you for doing this research), but there must be some coverage that is directly about her (preferably about her early life, education, career) to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Disagree with you; check references 1, 3-5 and 7, particularly such reporting in reference 1.Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'm not seeing the kind of coverage required to meet WP:NJOURNALIST. Some participants above are citing discussion of her work ([1], [2]) as WP:SIGCOV of her, which it's not (that's more of an WP:NACADEMIC criterion). These are mentions, not independent reviews of her body of work required to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Meanwhile, the Bits and Deets article should be deleted as an unreliable blog that scrapes personal info and aggregates it as SEO bait. The rest of the sources appear to be her own work or WP:INTERVIEWs. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:Interviews: "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." The multiple interviews listed were done by highly reputable outlets, including the New York Times and NPR. The interviews were presented as investigative journalism with the interview material often interspersed with the interviewer's own analysis and thoughts. Please review the interviews. She meets criteria for WP:NAUTHOR as there are multiple reviews of her book, her body of work, as it encompasses her previous columns and essays.Mwinog2777 (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The NYT interview is a podcast interview with Ezra Klein - a classic Q&A primary source interview with no editorial interpolation and no "investigative journalism". The so-called "NPR" interview is actually a PBS interview (these are not the same outlet) and again, it is a Q&A interview with Demsas. These are primary sources and do not count toward notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops, mixed up PBS and NPR, my bad. But, disagree, both interviews had in-depth comments by interviewers, particularly the Ezra Klein, even with only a cursory glance.~~~ Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Took out original ref. 2 and added another re high school attended. Mwinog2777 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: By my reading of WP:AUTHOR criteria #1, the subject meets notability given here essays and book on the housing crisis, e.g. book review in Bloomberg, Discourse Magazine, piece by Megan McArdle, discussion in San Francisco Examiner. I understand interviews don't count towards notability but they tend to have summary (i.e. secondary) coverage of the subject and in this case are in notable media. While these aren't WP:SIGCOV of the subject herself, they do discuss her research and vantage on this topic extensively. Nnev66 (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Capps interview in Bloomberg/CityLab is really a Q&A interview; I wouldn't count it as a "review" for NAUTHOR purposes. The Discourse piece would count as a review. If we can get to another real review, I'd say we have an NAUTHOR pass, but it's not there yet. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Vox review, reference 14, is a real review.Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't read the Vox piece due to their strict paywall, but WP:AGF I'll withdraw my !vote and trust you that it is an in-depth review and not an interview like the Capps piece. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The first part of the Bloomberg/CityLab article reads like a review of the book to me, albeit on the shorter side - one can ignore the interview that comes after for notability purposes. Perhaps an open question is when the book is cited by multiple news media sources if these count towards being "widely cited by peers or successors", i.e. NAUTHOR#1. Nnev66 (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it should be counted; how can it be argued otherwise? Mwinog2777 (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If citations meant from academic journals - but I believe reputable news media should also count Nnev66 (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  From NAUTHOR#1: "This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals." Scientific/academic writing is a separate entity with its own notability criteria (WP:NACADEMIC). Mwinog2777 (talk) 19:09, 1 April 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.