The result was redirect to RT (TV network)#Programming. The nominator's position that there the subject does not meet WP:GNG has not been rebutted, nor have sufficient independent RS been added to call the claim into question. I'll leave a redirect behind to the TV network, however, as that way people can at least find the show's name Qwyrxian ( talk) 03:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The A7 speedy deletion tag was removed with the claim that the rt.com source is a reliable source and therefore A7 does not apply. In actuality the rt.com site is the network's own site, meaning that the material on that webpage was placed there by her employer. This does not make her notable. Citation #8 and 9 are YouTube videos; the video at citation #11 does not mention her by name, and citation #10 is not about her at all. The stuff in the "Trivia" section is for the most part self-sourced to her own organisation's website MediaRoots.org. I think the article as it presently stands does not establish that the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and have opened this AFD to get some opinions from people who are more experienced in this area. Thanks. Dianna ( talk) 19:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
'the video at citation #11 does not mention her by name,'
The title is: 'WeAreChange confronts Rand Paul about how he tried to get Abby Martin of RT America and Mediaroots.org fired and stripped of her press credentials for asking him tough questions in the Capitol building.'
It features her confronting Paul and being interviewed about it.
I could offer a full-length version of the interview if it'd help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UKXpzdFQ_I
'citation #10 is not about her at all.' It's (obviously) there to support the claim of Mitt Romney being an interventionist; which helps to explain the story.
Beingsshepherd ( talk) 01:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd reply
Ok, I think I can satisfy that: Infowars Nightly News: Thursday (6-7-12) – Abby Martin – planet.infowars.com/uncategorized/infowars-nightly-news-thursday-6-7-12-abby-martin infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used @ 1:02:54 & RT’s Abby Martin : Israel’s War on Truth By Debbie Menon on 11/23/2012 [1] ~ 'Sabbah Report is a certified ‘Google News’ source for news and Op-Ed' http://sabbah.biz/mt/about/ It continues to mystify me, as to why this RT presenter's page IS acceptable: Marina_Dzhashi
Beingsshepherd ( talk) 02:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd reply
Dianna, this may sound impudent; but I disagree.
Before spending the time writing a Wiki article; I gauged what was seemingly acceptable, by looking at other pages. Perhaps my first 2 attempts failed to honour the letter of Wiki law; but I genuinely believed, both: that there would be no problem with a page dedicated to someone who hosts a half-hour television programme, internationally, several times a day, 5 days a week; and that my transgressions could be deemed beginner's mistakes - easily amended.
Presumably, the other RT presenter's articles passed through the same screening process, and were deemed legitimate?
If that's so; then I feel mislead and have had my time wasted.
Maybe you're all a bit jumpy over Wiki's recent 'Brett Straub' Leveson_Inquiry embarrassment. Beingsshepherd ( talk) 01:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd reply
I have done some clean-up on the article and gone over the citations individually to see what we've got.
That leaves is with Citation #12 (Sabbah Report); #14 WeAreChange.org (Luke Rudowski's website); #16 - website of a book for which she did artwork. I commented out one citation, which is an interview of Martin on a show called Infowars Nightly News, which confirms she is in the media but does not back up any of the other content in the article. WP:SPIP calls for in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources; in other words, someone (other than the subject of the article and her employer) needs to find her notable enough to have written up detailed coverage of her life and career. There's no such coverage in this case. This means that it's almost impossible to get a neutrally-worded article; there simply isn't any neutral independent coverage on which to draw. Therefore it's still my opinion that the article should be deleted as the subject is not notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, for an article at this time. -- Dianna ( talk) 16:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to RT (TV network)#Programming. The nominator's position that there the subject does not meet WP:GNG has not been rebutted, nor have sufficient independent RS been added to call the claim into question. I'll leave a redirect behind to the TV network, however, as that way people can at least find the show's name Qwyrxian ( talk) 03:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The A7 speedy deletion tag was removed with the claim that the rt.com source is a reliable source and therefore A7 does not apply. In actuality the rt.com site is the network's own site, meaning that the material on that webpage was placed there by her employer. This does not make her notable. Citation #8 and 9 are YouTube videos; the video at citation #11 does not mention her by name, and citation #10 is not about her at all. The stuff in the "Trivia" section is for the most part self-sourced to her own organisation's website MediaRoots.org. I think the article as it presently stands does not establish that the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and have opened this AFD to get some opinions from people who are more experienced in this area. Thanks. Dianna ( talk) 19:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
'the video at citation #11 does not mention her by name,'
The title is: 'WeAreChange confronts Rand Paul about how he tried to get Abby Martin of RT America and Mediaroots.org fired and stripped of her press credentials for asking him tough questions in the Capitol building.'
It features her confronting Paul and being interviewed about it.
I could offer a full-length version of the interview if it'd help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UKXpzdFQ_I
'citation #10 is not about her at all.' It's (obviously) there to support the claim of Mitt Romney being an interventionist; which helps to explain the story.
Beingsshepherd ( talk) 01:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd reply
Ok, I think I can satisfy that: Infowars Nightly News: Thursday (6-7-12) – Abby Martin – planet.infowars.com/uncategorized/infowars-nightly-news-thursday-6-7-12-abby-martin infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used @ 1:02:54 & RT’s Abby Martin : Israel’s War on Truth By Debbie Menon on 11/23/2012 [1] ~ 'Sabbah Report is a certified ‘Google News’ source for news and Op-Ed' http://sabbah.biz/mt/about/ It continues to mystify me, as to why this RT presenter's page IS acceptable: Marina_Dzhashi
Beingsshepherd ( talk) 02:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd reply
Dianna, this may sound impudent; but I disagree.
Before spending the time writing a Wiki article; I gauged what was seemingly acceptable, by looking at other pages. Perhaps my first 2 attempts failed to honour the letter of Wiki law; but I genuinely believed, both: that there would be no problem with a page dedicated to someone who hosts a half-hour television programme, internationally, several times a day, 5 days a week; and that my transgressions could be deemed beginner's mistakes - easily amended.
Presumably, the other RT presenter's articles passed through the same screening process, and were deemed legitimate?
If that's so; then I feel mislead and have had my time wasted.
Maybe you're all a bit jumpy over Wiki's recent 'Brett Straub' Leveson_Inquiry embarrassment. Beingsshepherd ( talk) 01:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd reply
I have done some clean-up on the article and gone over the citations individually to see what we've got.
That leaves is with Citation #12 (Sabbah Report); #14 WeAreChange.org (Luke Rudowski's website); #16 - website of a book for which she did artwork. I commented out one citation, which is an interview of Martin on a show called Infowars Nightly News, which confirms she is in the media but does not back up any of the other content in the article. WP:SPIP calls for in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources; in other words, someone (other than the subject of the article and her employer) needs to find her notable enough to have written up detailed coverage of her life and career. There's no such coverage in this case. This means that it's almost impossible to get a neutrally-worded article; there simply isn't any neutral independent coverage on which to draw. Therefore it's still my opinion that the article should be deleted as the subject is not notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, for an article at this time. -- Dianna ( talk) 16:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply