Jump to content

Talk:Mark Judge (writer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Section on political affiliations needed

[edit]

There should be a section on his activist/political commitments and affiliations now that it is being covered in multiple WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional research website info

[edit]

[1]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for development of this article may be located at

[edit]

Sources for development of this article may be located at:

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

Sagecandor (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't replace last name field with a URL

[edit]

Please don't replace last name field with a URL.

As was done, here [2].

This is disruptive.

Sagecandor (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha good catch, kind of funny. Almost like they are not notable. PackMecEng (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please use MDY dates

[edit]

Please use MDY dates in this article, for citations and body text.

Added template here [3]. Sagecandor (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of entire section on Selected articles

[edit]

[4]

This is inappropriate.

Lists articles by the subject in major publications.

Including The Washington Post.

Belongs in this article.

Sagecandor (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope pure WP:RECENTISM, you are just fluffing the article at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Articles from over 10 years ago are NOT "recentism". Sagecandor (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you did not give a link, I assumed you meant the recent Washington Post article about it. Which article do you mean? PackMecEng (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the ENTIRE section. Including articles from OVER TEN YEARS AGO. That is NOT "recentism". Sagecandor (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From what I saw they were primary sources of each of the articles. Not secondary coverage. PackMecEng (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not "recentism". Sagecandor (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again I was under the assumption you were supporting it with the recent Washington Post article. Not nothing at all, my mistake. With no secondary sources covering the journal articles and giving them weight it is clearly an example of WP:UNDUE. This has been discussed before on others articles as well. PackMecEng (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for acknowledging your mistake about your false claim of "recentism". Sagecandor (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable secondary sources for information you insert into the article. PackMecEng (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do ! Thank you for acknowledging that important Wikipedia policy ! Please also read WP:SELFPUB for biographies. Sagecandor (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SELFPUB is not for establishing notability. For example see point one, without secondary sources it is purely self serving. PackMecEng (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one ever said anything about establishing notability. Sagecandor (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not notable, it does not belong in an article. That is a basic thing... PackMecEng (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a basic thing to have a small list of articles by writers in articles about writers on Wikipedia. Sagecandor (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If those articles are notable for something sure. Otherwise it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. PackMecEng (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite encyclopedic to list works by author in an article about the author. Sagecandor (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What policy is that listed under? I have given policy reasons why it is no good. Your turn. PackMecEng (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have been adding articles by the author that have themselves been discussed in secondary sources. I agree to limit future additions to this section of the article to those conditions. Sagecandor (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JFC Sagecandor, don't you have anything better to do? A dude says "oh look at that article" and poof, it's there. And do not EVER again say that listing articles is somehow encyclopedic. I had some respect for you as an editor, but instead of writing good text that tells the reader what they want to know, you're turning this into a damn linkdump. Have you removed all the articles from that other biography already? Drmies (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not frequent Wikipedia talk pages regularly, but in my limited experience, this discussion here (about linking or not linking to articles authored by the subject), seems quite odd. The subject is a writer, and it would naturally occur to any visitor to look at something that writer has written and published. As I just did. Drewkeeling (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the lasting impact?

[edit]

So per WP:Author, does he fit?

1-"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."

Looking at the sources, specifically the non-continued coverage, I would have to say no. Yes some of their works at the time were reported by some RS. Some of the sources are questionable at best, and certainly not something that has been widely cited by peers.

2-"The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique."

This just straight up does not seem to be the case here. They all appear to be mundane opinion writing that has not changed anything significantly.

3-"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

This again does not appear to be the case. Again it was marginally reported at the time but nothing came of it. Certainly no works based off of his work.

4-"The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

Finally just nope here as well.

From what I see they do not meet any of these requirements. Am I mistaken? PackMecEng (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Side discussion PackMecEng (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Seems like another forum for the same discussion as at the WP:AfD. Sagecandor (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is one of the reasons for the AFD. But I go on the assumption of a keep when I participate in one, as I see you are doing. With that being said I brought this up here instead of the AFD to get an idea of what should stay and what should go from the article. Trying to figure out how to establish what the weight of his writing is compared to the recent controversy and how to balance out the article from there. PackMecEng (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You want the entire article deleted. Not sure I understand why to have 2 forums instead of one forum for discussion about deletion of the page ? Sagecandor (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion here is going on the assumption of a keep. Yes I think the whole thing should be deleted, that is why I started the AFD. The reason for this discussion is separate and unrelated. This is to discussion what content should be in the article verses deleting the whole article. PackMecEng (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems silly to discuss that if the article is going to be deleted. Sagecandor (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is silly about trying to improve an article? PackMecEng (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you going on the assumption of a keep ? Sagecandor (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Safest bet, the system is designed to lean to no consensus (ie keep) or keep. They have a lower threshold to achieve, it takes a lot to delete an article in general normally. So that is the stand I take with any AFD, its not over until it's over. Until it has run its course you treat the article like the AFD is not happening. PackMecEng (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for your explanation of your opinion about the system. Sagecandor (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh you have been around far far to long to not know that stuff. PackMecEng (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate hearing your views in the manner in which you described them to me, so thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the career section needs a lot of trimming but I am not sure where to start at this point. Anyone have some suggestions? PackMecEng (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is some serious padding going on. One of the references for that Swing book of his is just beautifully deceptive--Eric Brace's "Now that I think about 2001" has this to say, "Those four tomes [four other books, which actually got a half-sentence of discussion] can go on your shelf beside 2000's look at the area's swing revival, "If It Ain't Got That Swing," by Mark Gauvreau Judge." Seriously--that is all. It's barely a mention. And please see this for an example that is so bad that I removed it altogether, if only because it adds to the linkdump for the subject's writing that this article already is. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is I cannot get to any of the sources easily. They are all old and few if any transcribed online. That mixed with no coverage past release dates make it difficult to check notability or reliability of the sources. PackMecEng (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed the career section down a little, what I could at least. Next would be someone condensing the opinions about it instead of just quoting everything. PackMecEng (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to that, after looking though the career section some more the majority of the reviews are negative. Are the ones that have received purely negative reviews something notable? Or are they notable for being not so good? It goes back to if they are a notable author I suppose. PackMecEng (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of summary of article from lede

[edit]

This is a bit excessive [5].

Propose we summarize the entire article contents, so the intro can function as a standalone summary of the entire article.

Sagecandor (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory:Regarding [6], in the intro, can we maybe just mention the 3 biggest periodicals he wrote for, namely The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Washington Post ? Sagecandor (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's usual to list all of the publications a freelancer has written for in the lede. It is usual to include publications where a journalist is an employee, or where they publish on a regular basis.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory and Editorofthewiki:Okay sounds good no problems. Sagecandor (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Atlantic source

[edit]

Here is significant critical analysis of Judge's writing from 2013. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of a fun read if yer in the mood for a short break and fart jokes, or shooting FoxLimbaugh&Co fish in a barrel. Like this:
"The rest of the piece goes on just like this, which is to say, Mark Judge matching seven made-up virtues with standard anti-Obama boilerplate of the sort you find in big, bold type stamped on unflattering images on your cousin's Facebook wall."
At first glance it seems to ridicule one article by Mark Judge, and by inference, his brains, writing ability and imagination. "Discuss it?" Not being familiar with the author, we need more than one. Agree? (I'm so tempted to make a quip about ex-liberal writers now in Limbaughtomyville!) I'm kinda surprised this article is still unlocked. Still nothing on the latest victim; Julie Swetnick? Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:A9B2:6649:E1DB:3466 (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

Removal of sourced info in multiple places

[edit]

Disagree with removal of sourced info in multiple places:

[7].

It's been widely cited among thousands of secondary reliable sources.

Can we add this back please?

Thanks !

Sagecandor (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could be added to the controversy section, it is unrelated to the career section I suppose. Does it provide any useful insight into anything? PackMecEng (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does--but that anything has nothing to do with him or his article, of course... Wait, THOUSANDS OF RELIABLE SOURCES? Maybe it should be written in bold print then. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could agree with that suggestion. What wording do you propose? Sagecandor (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps after "Mark Judge was implicated in the accusations of sexual assault that surfaced during Kavanaugh's Senate confirmation process."? PackMecEng (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should mention his discussion of Kavanaugh in his book. Sagecandor (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really about the book though and the sources all discuss it in relation to the recent controversy. PackMecEng (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the subject of this article. Sagecandor (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More it is about the controversy than the book itself. It would not be mentioned in the news without that. Unless you can find a source that specifically discusses that part pre-dating this whole debacle. PackMecEng (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We agree that it deserves mention in the section of the article on the Supreme Court nomination. Sagecandor (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leadworthy?

[edit]

The allegations currently don't seem leadworthy to me (WP:NOTNEWS), as there are many more things to also put in the lead. There is no reason to believe that the coverage won't die down soon, and all coverage is directly related to Kavanaugh. I'm personally of the opinion that WP:NOTGOSSIP does not apply because this is too high-profile (by the way, high-profile ≠ long-term significance). Even if an action by Judge influences something related to Kavanaugh, its significance will still have to be debated. I propose removing the paragraph from the lead, until someone finds a retrospective reliable source about this whose subject is Judge, not Kavanaugh. wumbolo ^^^ 21:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • My proposal is that we delete the article because IMO the guy is not notable outside of the news coverage; as an author he's just a nobody. Alternatively, we accept that he is here to stay in no small part due to his recent...activities, and then we have to live with that information being in the lead. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removing from the lead because: if, as those !voting "Keep" at the AfD have stated, this individual was already notable due to being an author, then the allegations are inappropriate in the lead and his (allegedly) notable authorship is what should be highlighted to readers from the viewpoint of the lead. On the other hand, I also still...
  • Support deletion of the article based on the reasons for my "delete" vote at the article (and because of what Drmies wrote in the comment above mine here). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BullRangifer: I hope you're kidding. There's no harm in what I wrote just as there's no harm in what Drmies wrote which was also to express that the article should be deleted. And don't tell me what to stick to discussing. In fact, I'd appreciate it if you'd just leave me alone altogether. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not kidding at all. We are holding an AfD elsewhere. That's the right place to !vote. Doing it in two different places is disruptive. You should be able to understand that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith? How odd, I am just going by policy here and the timeline of events. Please retract your aspersion. PackMecEng (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I just believe that we don't allocate space in the article to demonstrate why the article exists. wumbolo ^^^ 22:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
??? That makes no sense. The notable facts always remain part of the article, and in the beginning a prominent part of it. If they are not included, then the article can be deleted for lack of evidence of notability. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You don't understand what we're talking about. PackMecEng is saying that we are writing this article, and that we heard of this Mark Judge, because of the Kavanaugh allegations. But just because that's why we're here, doesn't mean we shouldn't actually adhere to content policies. wumbolo ^^^ 22:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's completely possible to do both at the same time. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)But we do give space to things covered in the article and what has the most RS backing. Which is this controversy. Perhaps in time if they become a notable author in their own right and the weight of that will out shine the Kavanaugh stuff. But until then there is no reason to remove it. Heck even if we go by WP:LEAD, it would warrant inclusion in the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has the most RS backing, but it's all short-term. WP:LEAD says that we should judge inclusion by the relative emphasis of reliable sources on individual aspects of an article subject, and we can't really know how much emphasis will RS place on the allegations in the future. If a RS mentions Judge outside of this recentist context in a few years, we'll see if they say "writer Judge" or "writer Judge, who was involved in the 2018 allegations". wumbolo ^^^ 22:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. As time goes on, the article may morph as other aspects of his life and career get more attention. It can be tweaked accordingly at that time, but right now the main notability factor should be mentioned in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is how it was until here, by E.M.Gregory. I would support going back to it's own main section I suppose. PackMecEng (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's recent. Recent, non-trivial material that is widely covered in sources is routinely summarized in the lead. I have no interest in being referred to an essay that does not represent widespread practice.- MrX 🖋 22:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an essay. Looks like you didn't even read it. wumbolo ^^^ 12:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Article brings doubt on Mark Judge

[edit]

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez Brings into doubt Mark Judges story. After seeing Judge’s denial, Elizabeth Rasor, who met Judge at Catholic University and was in a relationship with him for about three years, said that she felt morally obligated to challenge his account that “ ‘no horseplay’ took place at Georgetown Prep with women.” Rasor stressed that “under normal circumstances, I wouldn’t reveal information that was told in confidence,” but, she said, “I can’t stand by and watch him lie.” In an interview with The New Yorker, she said, “Mark told me a very different story.” Rasor recalled that Judge had told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman. Rasor said that Judge seemed to regard it as fully consensual. She said that Judge did not name others involved in the incident, and she has no knowledge that Kavanaugh participated. But Rasor was disturbed by the story and noted that it undercut Judge’s protestations about the sexual innocence of Georgetown Prep. (Barbara Van Gelder, an attorney for Judge, said that he “categorically denies” the account related by Rasor. Van Gelder said that Judge had no further comment.) Another woman who attended high school in the nineteen-eighties in Montgomery County, Maryland, where Georgetown Prep is located, also refuted Judge’s account of the social scene at the time, sending a letter to Ford’s lawyers saying that she had witnessed boys at parties that included Georgetown Prep students engaging in sexual misconduct. In an interview, the woman, who asked to have her name withheld for fear of political retribution, recalled that male students “would get a female student blind drunk” on what they called “jungle juice”—grain alcohol mixed with Hawaiian Punch—then try to take advantage of her. “It was disgusting,” she said. “They treated women like meat.” Casprings (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Farrow, Ronan; Mayer, Jane (September 23, 2018), "Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh's College Years", The New Yorker, retrieved September 24, 2018

Sagecandor (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kavanaugh faces new accusations; Avenatti claims 'evidence' of 'targeting' women for gang rape

[edit]

Sagecandor (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, there's probably some usable content, however these are all virtually identical in content (so we don't need to cite them all), and are most germane to Kavanaugh's various articles. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I myself have added zero of them to the article. Just posted them here to the talk page for future reference. Sagecandor (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Third victim

[edit]

About 8 hours ago news broke that Julie Swetnick has written a sworn affidavit that sheds some light on this "gentleman's" early life. Comments? Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:A9B2:6649:E1DB:3466 (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

Inline citations in "Books" subsection?

[edit]

Since there are now Wikipedia articles for all of the books in the "Books" section, should we remove all the inline citations? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Removed inline citations from that particular subsection. Sagecandor (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer:It was added back, by another editor. I've got no problems with that particular removal. Sagecandor (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm...MrX...Did you intend to revert the removal of inline citations for publications? That seems like a fairly uncontroversial convention, that...you know...they're already citations. GMGtalk 22:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't even see how that would have been possible. I will attempt to fix it, and probably mess it up further ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.- MrX 🖋 22:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me ! Sagecandor (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of sexual allegations in the intro

[edit]

I think mentioning unevidenced sexual allegations in the short intro gives too much undue weight to defamatory content and is against Wikipedia's impartiality. A section already exists discussing the controversies. Omid.espero (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By far the most noteworthy thing about the subject is his role in the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh. For that reason, this material should be summarized in the lead. See WP:LEAD and WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 🖋 22:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it has so much weight as to deserve its own section indicates it should also be mentioned in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Mark Judge?

[edit]

At this point, this article appears to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (and for foreseeable future). The other Mark Judge (architect) never broke 55 views per month in the past two years (as "Mark Judge", before the move): [8]. Thoughts on this? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Should be moved.Casprings (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wait. It may be the primary topic now, but a year after? Two years after? I am not so sure if it will even overcome, by the number of views, the page about the architect, let alone satisfy the conditions of being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Openlydialectic (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 October 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There's no consensus for this move at this time. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Mark Judge (writer) → Mark Judge – Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Widely viewed page and the other Mark Judge is far less known. Casprings (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that is fairly bold for a first vote that it should be snow. PackMecEng (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Support and agree with the comments by Casprings, Cullen328, and K.e.coffman. The other Judge has had no notable publications. Sagecandor (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Strike sock. wumbolo ^^^ 16:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Deletion of this page

[edit]

This page seems to be a pretty clear cut instance of WP:BLP1E. I know that this has been discussed before, but is it about time to revive discussion about deleting this page or merging it into another? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judge meets WP:AUTHOR as the author of several books that are themselves notable. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's really a stretch. Is Mark Judge really "person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work."? By all indication he was an obscure author before his name entered the news cycle this last month. Certainly there are more prolific authors who do not have similar pages? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For better or worse they are well known now. Before the event I think it would be a clear fail of WP:AUTHOR, but now there is a lot of coverage. Even of the books specifically for example them selling for a lot of money since so few were printed or how members of the committee read his books before testimony. PackMecEng (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But this is exactly the problem. There is a Wikipedia policy that fits this situation, and it's called WP:BLP1E. The article clearly fails the three criteria that policy sets out. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I do not disagree with you. Heck I even did the first AFD here, it's just given the still WP:RECENT WP:NOTNEWS I think it is destined to at best no consensus. Even though it was mostly written by a now rightfully blocked sock. Perhaps when people have stopped being so uppity about it in the future. PackMecEng (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E does not say people notable for one event cannot have articles. Plus, there was coverage of Judge's work before the Blasey Ford testimony. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5 of Judge's books are notable enough for their own pages. There is no clear page for a merge or redirect. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know that many have cited WP:AUTHOR to keep this page, but I really think this is an obvious example of WP:WIKILAWYERING. Even if the case could be made that some of Mark Judge's books meet the extremely broad and subjective criteria of WP:AUTHOR, neither him nor his work received any attention from Wikipedia editors before his involvement in the Kavanaugh controversy. Indeed, this page and the separate pages for each of his books were all created in September 2018, despite his being a published author for many years. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's always WP:AFD available, but I don't think it would be successful now or in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth

[edit]

Do we have a source his date of birth is September 24, 1964? He was definitely born in 1964 but I'm not sure on the date. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 12:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Judge_(writer)&oldid=1253704961"