- 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. After improvements were made. Sandstein 12:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
A. B. Stoddard
AfDs for this article:
- A. B. Stoddard ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article was previously nominated in July 2014 and was closed as no consensus. The keep votes in that discussion stated there were enough
reliable sources out there to support keeping, but that the article needed to have them added. Neither of the people who voted to keep have done anything to improve the article since that time. As it currently stands, there is no claim of notability made in the article, and there is no evidence of notability within the article. It has been tagged as needing to have additional reliable sources in order to be able to
verify the
notability for almost five years. It has been tagged as needing evidence of notability since July 2014. None has been provided. Therefore, this article should be deleted as there is no claim or evidence of notability provided in the article. ···
日本穣 ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WP Japan! 00:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Based on the new citations which have been added, there are now multiple claims of notability in the article and they are supported by reliable sources. She now meets
WP:GNG, so I withdraw my nomination and vote to keep the article. ···
日本穣 ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WP Japan! 20:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Per
WP:WDAFD: Since there are those who have expressed support for deletion the AFD should not be closed as withdrawn at this time. Should they also withdraw their support then the nomination can be withdrawn. My opinion is that it will likely close as a Keep within the normal time period anyway --|
Uncle Milty |
talk | 01:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of that. I was just making sure people knew I was no longer requesting deletion, regardless of what other people voted. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Per
WP:WDAFD: Since there are those who have expressed support for deletion the AFD should not be closed as withdrawn at this time. Should they also withdraw their support then the nomination can be withdrawn. My opinion is that it will likely close as a Keep within the normal time period anyway --|
Uncle Milty |
talk | 01:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Based on the new citations which have been added, there are now multiple claims of notability in the article and they are supported by reliable sources. She now meets
WP:GNG, so I withdraw my nomination and vote to keep the article. ···
日本穣 ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WP Japan! 20:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Article doesn't even mention she has regularly appeared on Fox News for years. The article needs expanded and sourced instead of deletion. Lack of cites in the article is not a reason for deletion.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 02:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- If there are no citations to demonstrate that she is notable, then yes, that certainly is a reason to delete. You gonna add any, or are you just going to insist that there must be some because you know she's notable? Hint - there aren't any in the article because there aren't any on the internet. 184.13.0.107 ( talk) 03:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Personally, I hope it gets deleted since she is a liberal. However, as a Wikipedia editor, I believe she very clearly and easily passes
WP:JOURNALIST given that she "is widely cited by peers". A simple google search turns up a large number of cites by her peers; I stopped counting after the first couple pages of Google hits. In other words, the cites clearly exist. Once more, the fact that the clearly available cites have not been added is not a reason for deletion. This is perhaps the worst case of a
WP:BEFORE failure I have seen.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 05:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- If they're so plentiful then why can't you be bothered to add them to the article?
184.13.0.107 (
talk) 06:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not my job. It was the nominator's job per WP:BEFORE. They exist. More than enough to pass WP:GNG. That is enough for Keep. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 13:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- If they're so plentiful then why can't you be bothered to add them to the article?
184.13.0.107 (
talk) 06:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Personally, I hope it gets deleted since she is a liberal. However, as a Wikipedia editor, I believe she very clearly and easily passes
WP:JOURNALIST given that she "is widely cited by peers". A simple google search turns up a large number of cites by her peers; I stopped counting after the first couple pages of Google hits. In other words, the cites clearly exist. Once more, the fact that the clearly available cites have not been added is not a reason for deletion. This is perhaps the worst case of a
WP:BEFORE failure I have seen.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 05:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment: @
VMS Mosaic: - would you mind listing a few of the cites by her peers? I'm not seeing a whole lot other than her own writings which are syndicated in various places. I might be looking in the wrong places. Thanks.
JMWt (
talk) 16:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- VMS Mosaic, if I were an admin thinking about closing this thing (wait, I am!) I would not put much weight on your vote, since you supply no evidence whatsoever that she's notable. You assert it, but that's not the same. The burden is not on the nominator to prove that she's not notable--the nominator has indicated well enough why they think the subject is not notable. The onus is on you, and pointing at the previous AfD doesn't help much, since all the keeps there are variations of WP:LOTSOFGHITS. In other words, I urge you to add to the article or to the discussion. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 16:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I added a cite from a journalist/columnist (clearly a peer, though less famous) on an international news site talking about and quoting her per WP:JOURNALIST. Probably should have searched a minute or two more for a better one, but all the really good ones on the first couple google search pages have already been added. The point I have been trying to make (rather badly) is that the nominator could not possibly have made a real attempt at WP:BEFORE or else had no idea how notability applies to journalists. A lot of the delete !votes here are WP:JNN as already pointed out by JMWt. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 22:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- The articles has been sitting there begging for additional citations to be added for nearly 6 years, but no one has added them. Sometimes a deletion discussion is a good way to light a fire under people such as yourself who claim and claim and claim that the topic is notable, but never bother to add anything to the article. It worked very well this time. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Seems to me that the only reference recently added to the page which could be considered to be in any sense "citation by peers" is one on Huffington Post, which itself appears to be a blog which is syndicated from another fairly non-notable blog. The rest are obituaries of someone else, very brief mentions or reporting something she has written. The latter are not independent secondary sources, I'd argue. It seems to me that this person ought to be notable, but looking only at the relevant notability criteria and the available references, I'm not sure that she is. Nothing that I've found hits the "significant" level of coverage, in my opinion. JMWt ( talk) 08:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Why is even in question? Fails notability. BMK ( talk) 03:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete insufficient referencing to assert notability Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: not notable, per others. This is a very clear case. Delta13C ( talk) 08:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep notable Curro2 ( talk) 16:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I added some new citations. She is known is conservative circles. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 18:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - after additional improvements by user Vinegarymass91. notable, also per WP:GNG.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 00:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Deletechanging to keep 06:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)- the sources added by Vingerymass are the same sources I found and deemed insufficient for WP:GNG purposes back when I tried to PROD the article. Those sources are all either someone citing Stoddard (whichI am aware satisfies WP:JOURNALIST butdoes not satisfy GNG), or trivial mentions of Stoddard. Plus the HufPo source, which if you read it is a rather critical reposted blog saying that Stoddard isn't acting as smart as she is or something like that (basically, HufPo bashing a conservative talking head over nothing in particular). 184.13.0.107 ( talk) 08:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think the political positions of the sources are relevant - clearly even if the HuffPost article is written by a political opponent, they've obviously decided that the subject is notable enough to be bashed. Which is itself a claim of notability. More of a problem is that HuffPost hosts and sydicated blogs, so there is a question as to whether this can be considered a
Wp:RS. Given that this is the best that anyone has yet found, I'm not really thinking it is enough on its own.
JMWt (
talk) 09:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think my meaning might have been unclear - I wasn't trying to imply that I have a problem with the article's political orientation, but the fact that it is not well written and, for all the verbiage, lacking in actual content. I'll see if I can track down the origin of the article.
184.13.0.107 (
talk) 22:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Found it. It originated on the not-a-reliable-source website The Daily Banter as an editorial [1]. 184.13.0.107 ( talk) 22:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think my meaning might have been unclear - I wasn't trying to imply that I have a problem with the article's political orientation, but the fact that it is not well written and, for all the verbiage, lacking in actual content. I'll see if I can track down the origin of the article.
184.13.0.107 (
talk) 22:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think the political positions of the sources are relevant - clearly even if the HuffPost article is written by a political opponent, they've obviously decided that the subject is notable enough to be bashed. Which is itself a claim of notability. More of a problem is that HuffPost hosts and sydicated blogs, so there is a question as to whether this can be considered a
Wp:RS. Given that this is the best that anyone has yet found, I'm not really thinking it is enough on its own.
JMWt (
talk) 09:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
"A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right"
Meaning that if an article passes Wikipedia:Notability (people) (one of the things listed on the right), then it does not need to pass WP:GNG. If an article passes WP:JOURNALIST, then it passes Wikipedia:Notability (people). There appears to be some agreement here that this article passes WP:JOURNALIST, so WP:GNG can be ignored/does not apply. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 10:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- No sorry, I don't agree that it passes
WP:JOURNALIST. Instead of asserting what other people agree on, how about explaining how these sources show the individual meets any of the four notability criteria there? I suggest that if one does not meet the
WP:GNG then they're hardly going to meet
WP:JOURNALIST so your substantive point is moot anyway.
JMWt (
talk) 12:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" - is the word "widely" the issue? She is clearly "cited by peers". I guess we can debate "widely". As someone else sourced, she "(c) has won significant critical attention" with the awards she has earned. I guess we also need to debate the word "significant"?
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 13:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- As discussed above, the only source we've been able to find that cites her at all is from HuffPo and is arguably not
WP:RS. Others repeat what she's written, but that's syndication not citing. Where is a link to an award she has won? That could be something which gives notability, I agree, but I don't recall seeing anything about a journalistic award.
JMWt (
talk) 13:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I added an infobox and citations for the two awards. ···
日本穣 ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WP Japan! 21:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
One of those, she was merely a finalist, she didn't actually win. The other was a weekly award. Is a weekly award enough to pass JOURNALIST or is it more like an everyone gets at least one thanks for participating award that doesn't mean anything? I ask because journalism isn't something I know much about (as I mentioned somewhere or other, my interest in this article was because of WP:WikiProject Qworty clean-up. IF a weekly award satisfies WP:JOURNALIST I have no issue with this article being kept. 184.13.0.107 ( talk) 01:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)- Can you give the sites where you got this information? Everything I found said they were annual awards by the DC chapter. I saw nothing about weekly, particularly given that they appear to be handed out at an annual banquet.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 05:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think I failed my save vs reading comprehension. Pray forget I said anything :) 184.13.0.107 ( talk) 06:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- All of them have links so anyone can check them. The "weekly" part is the category, not how often they are handed out. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Can you give the sites where you got this information? Everything I found said they were annual awards by the DC chapter. I saw nothing about weekly, particularly given that they appear to be handed out at an annual banquet.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 05:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- I added an infobox and citations for the two awards. ···
日本穣 ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WP Japan! 21:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- As discussed above, the only source we've been able to find that cites her at all is from HuffPo and is arguably not
WP:RS. Others repeat what she's written, but that's syndication not citing. Where is a link to an award she has won? That could be something which gives notability, I agree, but I don't recall seeing anything about a journalistic award.
JMWt (
talk) 13:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" - is the word "widely" the issue? She is clearly "cited by peers". I guess we can debate "widely". As someone else sourced, she "(c) has won significant critical attention" with the awards she has earned. I guess we also need to debate the word "significant"?
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 13:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - This person is on the edge of notability from what I have seen, but the Dateline Awards are enough to satisfy me that there's enough there to justify keeping the article. 184.13.0.107 ( talk) 06:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep After some good work by Vinegarymass91 passes WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 16:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - clearly passes both WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Onel5969 TT me 03:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. After improvements were made. Sandstein 12:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
A. B. Stoddard
AfDs for this article:
- A. B. Stoddard ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article was previously nominated in July 2014 and was closed as no consensus. The keep votes in that discussion stated there were enough
reliable sources out there to support keeping, but that the article needed to have them added. Neither of the people who voted to keep have done anything to improve the article since that time. As it currently stands, there is no claim of notability made in the article, and there is no evidence of notability within the article. It has been tagged as needing to have additional reliable sources in order to be able to
verify the
notability for almost five years. It has been tagged as needing evidence of notability since July 2014. None has been provided. Therefore, this article should be deleted as there is no claim or evidence of notability provided in the article. ···
日本穣 ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WP Japan! 00:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Based on the new citations which have been added, there are now multiple claims of notability in the article and they are supported by reliable sources. She now meets
WP:GNG, so I withdraw my nomination and vote to keep the article. ···
日本穣 ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WP Japan! 20:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Per
WP:WDAFD: Since there are those who have expressed support for deletion the AFD should not be closed as withdrawn at this time. Should they also withdraw their support then the nomination can be withdrawn. My opinion is that it will likely close as a Keep within the normal time period anyway --|
Uncle Milty |
talk | 01:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of that. I was just making sure people knew I was no longer requesting deletion, regardless of what other people voted. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Per
WP:WDAFD: Since there are those who have expressed support for deletion the AFD should not be closed as withdrawn at this time. Should they also withdraw their support then the nomination can be withdrawn. My opinion is that it will likely close as a Keep within the normal time period anyway --|
Uncle Milty |
talk | 01:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Based on the new citations which have been added, there are now multiple claims of notability in the article and they are supported by reliable sources. She now meets
WP:GNG, so I withdraw my nomination and vote to keep the article. ···
日本穣 ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WP Japan! 20:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Article doesn't even mention she has regularly appeared on Fox News for years. The article needs expanded and sourced instead of deletion. Lack of cites in the article is not a reason for deletion.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 02:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- If there are no citations to demonstrate that she is notable, then yes, that certainly is a reason to delete. You gonna add any, or are you just going to insist that there must be some because you know she's notable? Hint - there aren't any in the article because there aren't any on the internet. 184.13.0.107 ( talk) 03:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Personally, I hope it gets deleted since she is a liberal. However, as a Wikipedia editor, I believe she very clearly and easily passes
WP:JOURNALIST given that she "is widely cited by peers". A simple google search turns up a large number of cites by her peers; I stopped counting after the first couple pages of Google hits. In other words, the cites clearly exist. Once more, the fact that the clearly available cites have not been added is not a reason for deletion. This is perhaps the worst case of a
WP:BEFORE failure I have seen.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 05:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- If they're so plentiful then why can't you be bothered to add them to the article?
184.13.0.107 (
talk) 06:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not my job. It was the nominator's job per WP:BEFORE. They exist. More than enough to pass WP:GNG. That is enough for Keep. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 13:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- If they're so plentiful then why can't you be bothered to add them to the article?
184.13.0.107 (
talk) 06:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Personally, I hope it gets deleted since she is a liberal. However, as a Wikipedia editor, I believe she very clearly and easily passes
WP:JOURNALIST given that she "is widely cited by peers". A simple google search turns up a large number of cites by her peers; I stopped counting after the first couple pages of Google hits. In other words, the cites clearly exist. Once more, the fact that the clearly available cites have not been added is not a reason for deletion. This is perhaps the worst case of a
WP:BEFORE failure I have seen.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 05:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment: @
VMS Mosaic: - would you mind listing a few of the cites by her peers? I'm not seeing a whole lot other than her own writings which are syndicated in various places. I might be looking in the wrong places. Thanks.
JMWt (
talk) 16:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- VMS Mosaic, if I were an admin thinking about closing this thing (wait, I am!) I would not put much weight on your vote, since you supply no evidence whatsoever that she's notable. You assert it, but that's not the same. The burden is not on the nominator to prove that she's not notable--the nominator has indicated well enough why they think the subject is not notable. The onus is on you, and pointing at the previous AfD doesn't help much, since all the keeps there are variations of WP:LOTSOFGHITS. In other words, I urge you to add to the article or to the discussion. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 16:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I added a cite from a journalist/columnist (clearly a peer, though less famous) on an international news site talking about and quoting her per WP:JOURNALIST. Probably should have searched a minute or two more for a better one, but all the really good ones on the first couple google search pages have already been added. The point I have been trying to make (rather badly) is that the nominator could not possibly have made a real attempt at WP:BEFORE or else had no idea how notability applies to journalists. A lot of the delete !votes here are WP:JNN as already pointed out by JMWt. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 22:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- The articles has been sitting there begging for additional citations to be added for nearly 6 years, but no one has added them. Sometimes a deletion discussion is a good way to light a fire under people such as yourself who claim and claim and claim that the topic is notable, but never bother to add anything to the article. It worked very well this time. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Seems to me that the only reference recently added to the page which could be considered to be in any sense "citation by peers" is one on Huffington Post, which itself appears to be a blog which is syndicated from another fairly non-notable blog. The rest are obituaries of someone else, very brief mentions or reporting something she has written. The latter are not independent secondary sources, I'd argue. It seems to me that this person ought to be notable, but looking only at the relevant notability criteria and the available references, I'm not sure that she is. Nothing that I've found hits the "significant" level of coverage, in my opinion. JMWt ( talk) 08:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Why is even in question? Fails notability. BMK ( talk) 03:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete insufficient referencing to assert notability Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: not notable, per others. This is a very clear case. Delta13C ( talk) 08:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep notable Curro2 ( talk) 16:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I added some new citations. She is known is conservative circles. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 18:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - after additional improvements by user Vinegarymass91. notable, also per WP:GNG.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 00:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Deletechanging to keep 06:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)- the sources added by Vingerymass are the same sources I found and deemed insufficient for WP:GNG purposes back when I tried to PROD the article. Those sources are all either someone citing Stoddard (whichI am aware satisfies WP:JOURNALIST butdoes not satisfy GNG), or trivial mentions of Stoddard. Plus the HufPo source, which if you read it is a rather critical reposted blog saying that Stoddard isn't acting as smart as she is or something like that (basically, HufPo bashing a conservative talking head over nothing in particular). 184.13.0.107 ( talk) 08:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think the political positions of the sources are relevant - clearly even if the HuffPost article is written by a political opponent, they've obviously decided that the subject is notable enough to be bashed. Which is itself a claim of notability. More of a problem is that HuffPost hosts and sydicated blogs, so there is a question as to whether this can be considered a
Wp:RS. Given that this is the best that anyone has yet found, I'm not really thinking it is enough on its own.
JMWt (
talk) 09:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think my meaning might have been unclear - I wasn't trying to imply that I have a problem with the article's political orientation, but the fact that it is not well written and, for all the verbiage, lacking in actual content. I'll see if I can track down the origin of the article.
184.13.0.107 (
talk) 22:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Found it. It originated on the not-a-reliable-source website The Daily Banter as an editorial [1]. 184.13.0.107 ( talk) 22:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think my meaning might have been unclear - I wasn't trying to imply that I have a problem with the article's political orientation, but the fact that it is not well written and, for all the verbiage, lacking in actual content. I'll see if I can track down the origin of the article.
184.13.0.107 (
talk) 22:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think the political positions of the sources are relevant - clearly even if the HuffPost article is written by a political opponent, they've obviously decided that the subject is notable enough to be bashed. Which is itself a claim of notability. More of a problem is that HuffPost hosts and sydicated blogs, so there is a question as to whether this can be considered a
Wp:RS. Given that this is the best that anyone has yet found, I'm not really thinking it is enough on its own.
JMWt (
talk) 09:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
"A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right"
Meaning that if an article passes Wikipedia:Notability (people) (one of the things listed on the right), then it does not need to pass WP:GNG. If an article passes WP:JOURNALIST, then it passes Wikipedia:Notability (people). There appears to be some agreement here that this article passes WP:JOURNALIST, so WP:GNG can be ignored/does not apply. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 10:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- No sorry, I don't agree that it passes
WP:JOURNALIST. Instead of asserting what other people agree on, how about explaining how these sources show the individual meets any of the four notability criteria there? I suggest that if one does not meet the
WP:GNG then they're hardly going to meet
WP:JOURNALIST so your substantive point is moot anyway.
JMWt (
talk) 12:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" - is the word "widely" the issue? She is clearly "cited by peers". I guess we can debate "widely". As someone else sourced, she "(c) has won significant critical attention" with the awards she has earned. I guess we also need to debate the word "significant"?
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 13:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- As discussed above, the only source we've been able to find that cites her at all is from HuffPo and is arguably not
WP:RS. Others repeat what she's written, but that's syndication not citing. Where is a link to an award she has won? That could be something which gives notability, I agree, but I don't recall seeing anything about a journalistic award.
JMWt (
talk) 13:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I added an infobox and citations for the two awards. ···
日本穣 ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WP Japan! 21:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
One of those, she was merely a finalist, she didn't actually win. The other was a weekly award. Is a weekly award enough to pass JOURNALIST or is it more like an everyone gets at least one thanks for participating award that doesn't mean anything? I ask because journalism isn't something I know much about (as I mentioned somewhere or other, my interest in this article was because of WP:WikiProject Qworty clean-up. IF a weekly award satisfies WP:JOURNALIST I have no issue with this article being kept. 184.13.0.107 ( talk) 01:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)- Can you give the sites where you got this information? Everything I found said they were annual awards by the DC chapter. I saw nothing about weekly, particularly given that they appear to be handed out at an annual banquet.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 05:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think I failed my save vs reading comprehension. Pray forget I said anything :) 184.13.0.107 ( talk) 06:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- All of them have links so anyone can check them. The "weekly" part is the category, not how often they are handed out. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Can you give the sites where you got this information? Everything I found said they were annual awards by the DC chapter. I saw nothing about weekly, particularly given that they appear to be handed out at an annual banquet.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 05:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- I added an infobox and citations for the two awards. ···
日本穣 ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WP Japan! 21:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- As discussed above, the only source we've been able to find that cites her at all is from HuffPo and is arguably not
WP:RS. Others repeat what she's written, but that's syndication not citing. Where is a link to an award she has won? That could be something which gives notability, I agree, but I don't recall seeing anything about a journalistic award.
JMWt (
talk) 13:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" - is the word "widely" the issue? She is clearly "cited by peers". I guess we can debate "widely". As someone else sourced, she "(c) has won significant critical attention" with the awards she has earned. I guess we also need to debate the word "significant"?
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 13:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - This person is on the edge of notability from what I have seen, but the Dateline Awards are enough to satisfy me that there's enough there to justify keeping the article. 184.13.0.107 ( talk) 06:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep After some good work by Vinegarymass91 passes WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 16:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - clearly passes both WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Onel5969 TT me 03:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- 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.