- 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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Karen Tumulty
- Karen Tumulty ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Questionably notable and improvable as I'm not entirely sure she satisfies journalists notability guidelines (maybe the #1, "an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors") but as such, I'm nominating as the best links I found were only this, this, this and this. Notifying past user Gobonobo and also DGG who lists to be notified. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. for both lack of notability and for the promotionalism: the articles is composed primarily of the names and links to the famous people she happened to do a story on--or even just were her guest at a dinner. I think it fair to assume that such padding indicates there's nothing substantial to write. The 2008 controversy is much too minor. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC) .
- Keep. Karen Tumulty has been a prominent and widely respected political reporter for decades. So I guess it doesn't surprise me that people unfamiliar with political journalism would have the impulse to delete the article rather than improve it. (It could be improved, of course, but that takes time that you'd rather spend polishing your deletionist crew.) You know, when the predominantly male editor community takes a total of five minutes, tops, to decide to delete an article about a prominent woman, it's pretty clear to me what's up. MikeGodwin ( talk) 15:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets WP:JOURNALIST #1 and WP:BASIC. Tumulty is a well-known and prolific US political correspondent. She has written over 36 cover stories for Time magazine and serves as a news analyst for various television shows. She received the Gerald Loeb Award and Edwin Hood Award. The sourcing on this article was less than optimal, but reliable sources have significant coverage on her career (see e.g. HBSB). gobonobo + c 18:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The article needs major work (the White House Correspondents' Dinner paragraph is particularly painful), but Tumulty is notable. I believe she easily meets WP:JOURNALIST criterion 1, although I'm not sure of the best way to show it in the article. Gobonobo pointed out the notable journalism awards. An interesting measure of a writer's body of work is how frequently Wikipedia cites it. Looking through our articles on US politics, from Barack Obama to United States Congress, Tumulty is cited over and over. Worldbruce ( talk) 08:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep sources on her highly regarded career easily pass WP:GNG. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 03:18, 1 December 2015 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Karen Tumulty
- Karen Tumulty ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Questionably notable and improvable as I'm not entirely sure she satisfies journalists notability guidelines (maybe the #1, "an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors") but as such, I'm nominating as the best links I found were only this, this, this and this. Notifying past user Gobonobo and also DGG who lists to be notified. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. for both lack of notability and for the promotionalism: the articles is composed primarily of the names and links to the famous people she happened to do a story on--or even just were her guest at a dinner. I think it fair to assume that such padding indicates there's nothing substantial to write. The 2008 controversy is much too minor. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC) .
- Keep. Karen Tumulty has been a prominent and widely respected political reporter for decades. So I guess it doesn't surprise me that people unfamiliar with political journalism would have the impulse to delete the article rather than improve it. (It could be improved, of course, but that takes time that you'd rather spend polishing your deletionist crew.) You know, when the predominantly male editor community takes a total of five minutes, tops, to decide to delete an article about a prominent woman, it's pretty clear to me what's up. MikeGodwin ( talk) 15:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets WP:JOURNALIST #1 and WP:BASIC. Tumulty is a well-known and prolific US political correspondent. She has written over 36 cover stories for Time magazine and serves as a news analyst for various television shows. She received the Gerald Loeb Award and Edwin Hood Award. The sourcing on this article was less than optimal, but reliable sources have significant coverage on her career (see e.g. HBSB). gobonobo + c 18:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The article needs major work (the White House Correspondents' Dinner paragraph is particularly painful), but Tumulty is notable. I believe she easily meets WP:JOURNALIST criterion 1, although I'm not sure of the best way to show it in the article. Gobonobo pointed out the notable journalism awards. An interesting measure of a writer's body of work is how frequently Wikipedia cites it. Looking through our articles on US politics, from Barack Obama to United States Congress, Tumulty is cited over and over. Worldbruce ( talk) 08:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep sources on her highly regarded career easily pass WP:GNG. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 03:18, 1 December 2015 (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.