Talk:Jared Yates Sexton

Notability has not been established

This page seems to be highly self promotional. The person has little noteworthy accomplishments, and is of no public interest. recommend the page be deleted.

The majority of the sources are his own articles, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. Theroadislong (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

These are all sources by him NOT about him?

• https://atticusreview.org/category/nonfiction/general-politics/politics/
• https://atticusreview.org/atticus-on-the-trail-notes-on-an-american-tragedy/
• https://atticusreview.org/a-pilgrimage-to-americas-burnt-churches/
• https://newrepublic.com/article/134329/american-horror-story
• https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/opinion/is-the-trump-campaign-just-a-giant-safe-space-for-the-right.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/opinion/donald-trumps-toxic-masculinity.html?_r=0
• http://www.salon.com/2017/03/11/hillbilly-sellout-the-politics-of-j-d-vances-hillbilly-elegy-are-already-being-used-to-gut-the-working-poor/

and this one is just a listing

• http://class.georgiasouthern.edu/writling/directory/

You need to establish notability by adding references that show there is widespread coverage of him in reliable sources independent of him. Theroadislong (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

/* 3 years after initial entry and notability STILL has not been established */

This article is nothing more than an ad for a leftist blogger's books. It should be removed immediately. Snit333 (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I know this is a year later but I agree this should be removed due to lack of notability Nweil (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems like these two accounts with a combined <300 edits think this should be deleted because he's a "leftist" and not based on clear policy rationale. JesseRafe (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

OK great, lets dig in. I presume the closest notability guideline would be WP:AUTHOR? Lets go through the criteria: The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. No unless I'm missing something? The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. No. (c) is the closest. Sure his books have been reviewed but I would say that constitutes critical attention of a standard sort. His works have not received more attention than usual or "significant" attention. Again tell me if I'm off here. 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. Perhaps you could say his coverage of the Presidency of Donald Trump would fit the mold of something notable he was involved with. Or you could say the 2016 United States presidential election was something notable he contributed to. But he certainly didn't play a "major" role in either of those. You could find hundreds of people who played a larger role in both of those. His name or coverage does not appear on either of those wiki pages. Finally, The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. This is the most difficult to parse. He doesn't have any successors yet so it would be peers. Do other authors cite his work? I don't see evidence of that in the References area of the article so at the very least that should be updated. In fact, regarding the references, there are only four out of nineteen which qualify as WP:SECONDARY sources: #'s 2, 7, 8 and 14. For 2, Barrelhouse is a quite small outlet. Not worthy of much weight. For 7, Bloomberg News qualifies as a reliable source but this is an opinion article, filed under their "turnabout" section. For 8, again, Mother Jones qualifies as a reliable source but using it for politics (as this does) requires attribution per WP:RSPSOURCES. Reference 14 is Deadspin which is not a reliable source. For all these reasons I think this page should be merged, deleted, or further developed.Nweil (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Ironically there is a scholar named Jared Sexton who I noticed while doing some of this research who does not have a wikipedia page despite considerable influence on the thought within his field. His first scholarly work Amalgamation Schemes: Antiblackness and the Critique of Multiracialism has been cited almost 500 times in other scholarly works. Further he has been featured in journals such as Society & Space. Unfortunately, due to politically motivated information clutter like this wikipedia page, well deserving gentleman like him get lost in SEO purgatory. In fact, if you click on any of the Authority Control links, at the bottom of this wiki, it goes to the wrong Jared Sexton. The subject of this wiki is not a professor at UC Irvine. This should also be changed. Nweil (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)