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. Many of the "keep" arguments are not persuasive; "growing" notability, for instance, is not enough to justify the existence of an article. The subject may well become more prominent in the near future, and at that time we can revisit. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 00:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Justin Haskins

Justin Haskins (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

I'm not convinced this columnist is notable. He has undoubtedly written a few columns for notable organisations, but all the citations are either to his writing or his potted bios on the websites of those organisations. I can find no substantial secondary coverage about the person himself. Note that the article has previously been deleted, but that was about a different person (a non-notable martial artist) of the same name. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Primary sourced verification of his existence is not what gets a blogger, conservative or liberal or otherwise, into Wikipedia — independent reliable source coverage of him in unaffiliated media is what it takes, but there's none of that here. Bearcat ( talk) 18:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Qualifies as notable journalist. Billy Hathorn ( talk) 23:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• WP:ITSNOTABLE. Please explain how he qualifies. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I am the original author of the article. The entry is notable not only because Haskins has been published in numerous important publications, such as Fox News, the New York Post, etc., but also because he is a columnist at a leading conservative publication, Townhall.com, and the editor at a notable think tank, The Heartland Institute. Additionally, the argument that no unaffiliated sources are present is not accurate, especially now that additions have been made to the article to address this concern. Numerous unaffiliated sources exist, including from the Washington Post, Newsmax, and others. His controversy with nationally syndicated columnist Dana Milbank is also notable. Liberty Editor (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep I am the original author of the article. Significant updates have been made to this article to address the concerns presented here. Multiple additional unaffiliated sources have been added, including The Washington Post. I also added Haskins' notable controversy with nationally syndicated columnist Dana Milbank and added information that shows Haskins is a columnist at Townhall.com, a leading online conservative publication. Liberty Editor (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete: There's really no substantial secondary coverage about the person. A few snarks at something he wrote, and gosh, he graduated from high school and won an award in college. Not enough to pass WP:GNG. The Dissident Aggressor 14:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• I am the original author of the article. Your argument is absolutely untrue and completely without merit. As it is clearly displayed in the article, Haskins has been cited by Rush Limbaugh, the American Conservative Union, the Washington Post, writers at Breitbart.com and Newsmax, and others. Additionally, the argument that no unaffiliated sources are present is not accurate, especially now that additions have been made to the article to address this concern. Numerous unaffiliated sources exist, including from the Washington Post, Newsmax, and others. His controversy with nationally syndicated columnist Dana Milbank is also notable. LibertyEditor ( talk) 14:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Being cited by other people doesn't boost a person's notability — he has to be the subject of the coverage, not just namechecked in coverage of other things that aren't him. Bearcat ( talk) 17:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • If you take the time to read the Dana Milbank column published across the country, but originally in the Washington Post, you'll see he was clearly the subject of the column. Further, he was ALSO the subject of the story in the Newsmax story featured, as well as one of the subjects of the Breitbart.com-James Delingpole article cited. You're not even bothering to read the sources. Factually, it is undeniable he was the subject of those pieces. He was also clearly featured by Rush Limbaugh in a segment on Obamacare. Limbaugh appears to have discussed Haskins at length. This was also cited in the article. LibertyEditor ( talk) 21:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• The Milbank story simply briefly quotes Haskins because he's talking about Heartland doing a volte face on climate change. There's nothing about Haskins himself. Similarly, the Limbaugh story comes about because Limbaugh read part of one of his columns out on his show. Again, there's nothing about him (except saying who he is "He's an editor for the Heartland Institute"). I did try to find sources about Haskins before I brought this AfD, but I'm still seeing nothing. Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• The Milbank story does not simply "briefly quote" Haskins. A considerable part of the story discusses the article he wrote for Human Events. Obviously there is no biographical information about Haskins, but that's not the point of the citation. I have plenty of citations for that already. The Milbank article relies heavily on quotes from Haskins' writing. Additionally, your assertion Limbaugh quoted "part" of the Haskins story is factually untrue. He read essentially the whole thing on the air and introduced the article by saying who Haskins is. That means Limbaugh featured Haskins' piece, which, by the way, was published in the New York Post, a major publication. Your argument that there is nothing "about him" doesn't really hold much water, because again, the point is not to show people are listing biographical data about a person, but rather that the person is having an effect on the world of policy, news, media, etc. You say you tried to find sources about Haskins, but I have already listed numerous sources by unaffiliated parties talking about Haskins, who he is, and about his work. This is precisely what makes him notable. He's a writer whose articles have been read by millions of readers, he's a columnist at a well-known and highly read publication, and he works for a well-known public policy organization. His work has been cited and featured by influential people, publications, and organizations, such as Rush Limbaugh, the American Conservative Union, Newsmax, and Breitbart.com, among others. With all due respect, I just don't see how you can make the arguments you're making here, and I think the evidence pretty much speaks for itself. LibertyEditor ( talk) 22:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• UPDATE I added another citation, this time from an interview Haskins had with Rhode Island radio talk show host Buddy Cianci, who has one of the most popular talk radio shows in the state. This provides another example of an unaffiliated source mentioning Haskins.

• Well, that would be a start, except that weblink doesn't mention anything about Haskins. Can you fix it? More to the point, you said "Your argument that there is nothing "about him" doesn't really hold much water...". But it does, because it's the only thing that matters here. WP:BIO is quite clear - "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". There are two important words here. Firstly "they". This means the person must have been covered, not something that they've written. Secondly "significant". The coverage about that person needs to be in-depth, passing mentions are not relevant. The amount of coverage produced so far about Haskins himself in secondary sources is not only not significant, but is indeed negligible. We need articles about Haskins here, that's the whole point. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Actually the link clearly goes to the site where the podcast interview between Haskins and Cianci is listed. You just have to scroll down to see it. You can't link directly to the podcast on that site. I understand your concern, but as I stated previously numerous times, these sources do, in fact, link to articles that are both about Haskins and about what he is writing, which are in essence one and the same thing. Virtually any writer is going to have similar kinds of sources, and having looked at numerous other writers of all political persuasions, it's clear to me that the sources presented here are very similar to those approved articles of other writers that are included on Wikipedia. Haskins has, as I pointed out, received significant coverage. His works have been talked about in numerous publications, by media personalities, and by important organizations. I've linked to many of them here. The references are not "in passing" anymore than any other references are "in passing" on virtually every other Wikipedia page. Unless an article is SOLELY about one person or a book is solely about one person, there is no such thing as a source that meets your definition, which again, virtually no article on Wikipedia, especially related to authors, fits. You say we need articles "about Haskins," but you haven't even defined what that means! Short of providing sources that speak only about Haskins' job title, place of birth, etc., which I have provided, there aren't any sources that would be like that for ANY political writer or author. Your standards are not adhered to by virtually ALL of the other writers listed in Wikipedia, in my opinion. I'm sure we could go on and on, but at some point, an editor is just going to have to make a decision. LibertyEditor ( talk) 01:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: I re-read the article and make slight editing changes. The subject is an upwardly-mobile journalist on the political right. He has been widely published in major periodicals and it seems to me should qualify as a journalist for inclusion in Wikipedia. There are plenty of sources. Billy Hathorn ( talk) 00:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

On the Fence / Weak Keep: I think the subject has some growing notability and there are a couple of references outside of his own works. I think better sourcing of his notability from reliable third party sources (newspapers, news organizations, etc.) would help move me closer towards a keep. Merely listing that he has articles and has been read by other commentators really doesn't cut it. It's a mixed bag, but it's one that I think can be overcome. If anything, I say keep it and keep working on it. 5minutes ( talk) 18:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Does not obviously pass WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:GNG. There is a claim above that this person has had significant coverage. Please, without discussion, simply provide 2-3 sources which feature this person as the subject of coverage. Signal me if these sources are provided and I will change my vote. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:HEY, despite my personal opinion of the Rightist Heartland Institute. Billy Hathorn has saved yet another crappy stub. The sources added prove that he's been covered by real sources, albeit not as extensively as some bloggers are. His appearance with Buddy in RI is a big endorsement by a @#$@&% wingbat. Bearian ( talk) 23:49, 6 August 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.