Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debbie Schlussel (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 speedy keep. Viriditas (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Schlussel

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Debbie Schlussel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is covered by self-published sources or in passing reference. No indication of notability in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Aside from making incendiary comments on her blog, subject does not appear to meet the notability guideline for writers. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. I am not convinced by any argument or source on this page that the subject is notable and should have a Wikipedia article. However, there is nothing I can do at this point, so I withdraw the nomination. People are seeing things in the sources that I cannot see. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I mentioned here, there's a ton of stuff about her at Google Books that has not yet made its way into the Wikipedia article. Considering the many obscure people who we've decided should have Wikipedia articles, this one would seem to easily qualify. Not that I like her incendiary comments, of course. Incidentally, there was this recent thread at BLPN.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what and why? The link you provide doesn't show me anything. Please provide a specific "keep" rationale that can be discussed here, not a recommendation for me to look elsewhere. How, for example, does this subject even begin to meet our notability guidelines for writers? We have far more independent sources about television host Abby Martin who writes all of her own episodes for RT and has co-directed a major film and reported and published notable works on Project Censored and the Occupy movement. Yet, her article has been deleted three times from Wikipedia, twice on AfD and once on AfC, even though she meets a higher bar for notability than Schlussel, who does not appear to be notable for anything except insulting people from the confines of her blog. So, please address the facts here, starting with the fact that notable people like Abby Martin have been deleted for far less. Then, begin to tell me how Schlussel's Wikipedia article demonstrates notable coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Viriditas (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Schlussel article, of course. The version of the Abby Martin article that was deleted is here. I would have supported the deletion of such a meagerly-sourced article, and that was the outcome of the Abby Martin AfD discussion. Even now there remains a Wikipedia article about the TV show that Martin hosts, whereas deletion of the Schlussel article would leave no article about her blog. In addition to the many footnoted sources in the Schlussel article (leaving aside those for her own blog), I get 792 hits at Google Books for Schlussel, and I have suggested using them to upgrade the Schlussel article. Maybe I'll have to get on it. ("Abby Martin" is a more common name, and so many of those search results do not refer to that Abby Martin.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gave you a fully sourced link to the AfC version of the Abby Martin article up above. How is Schlussel more notable than Abby Martin? Actually, how is Schlussel notable at all per our guidelines? The current article version shows she is not. She's a blogger who insults people and the majority of the article is sourced to her blog or other things, not independent secondary source coverage. Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not familiar with the AfC process, and it seems more relevant to focus here on the AfD process. According to the AfD rules, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." So, we should not limit ourselves to the current article version.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I took a look at the Google Books hits you linked to above. All that passing mention amounts to "look what this cute blonde Jewish blogger living in the heart of Detroit said about Muslims". And she gets her own Wikipedia article? Meanwhile, an actual journalist who has written and produced dozens, if not hundreds of reports, many of which have aired on her own television program, and who has helped direct a notable film about the Occupy movement and who has written articles for books published by Project Censored, can't have an article because...because...because...Debbie Schlussel is a cute blonde who says things about people on her blog? WTF? In what crazy, out of control, lawless, nonsensical world is a journalist who studied journalism and works as a journalist on her own television program and who has helped direct a major, definitive film about the Occupy movement not as notable as a minor, unknown blogger who gets publicity in gossip rags for insulting people? Is Wikipedia serious? Again, who is more notable here, Abby Martin, an accomplished journalist, television host and filmmaker, or Debbie Schlussel, an unknown blogger? Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, idiot assassins who manage to pull a trigger get Wikipedia articles, and come to think of it that's pretty much what Schlussel does, though not literally. Anyway, am I correct, Vriditas, that you think Abby Martin deserves a Wikipedia article? Then why not just take the version that was rejected by a single editor at AfC, and create it yourself without going through AfC?Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abby Martin exists solely as a protected redirect because the community has determined that she isn't notable and shouldn't be allowed to have an aricle. Can you think of any conservative biographical subjects that have been protected from creation? In any case, what is Schlussel notable for here anyway? Cullen says she's a notable conservative. Is there any evidence that is true? And judging by the criteria for what makes one a notable conservative, she doesn't appear to have met it. Viriditas (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have now thoroughly convinced me that Abby Martin is a completely unrelated case. The second Martin AfD considered a lousy article with a total of four footnotes, resulting in deletion plus protection of the redirect. Then, the article was drastically improved but still rejected by a single editor at AfC. None of that is similar to what's happening here, except that you would like the same result, or rather you want us to continue having a Wikipedia article about Martin's.TV show but not an article about Schlussel's blog. I agree with Cullen. Even if the NYT did not have an entire article about Schlussel, it seems like there are plenty of high- profile sources listed in the footnotes, quite apart from the footnotes to her blog. Anyway, I would like to be quiet now and see what others think. Cheers, Viriditas.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not unrelated. Abby Martin is a notable journalist, television host, and filmmaker. She has contributed significant work about the Occupy movement to that body of literature. Yet, she is denied an article on Wikipedia. On the other hand, we have Schlussel, an unknown blogger and unknown film critic who received coverage from a NYT media blogger when her press pass was revoked by a studio. This is not notable for a biographical article on Wikipedia as it refers to a one time event with no lasting historical importance. It's also been asserted that she is known for her conservatism, but outside of this media blogger, the conservative literature is silent on her contributions and importance. That's why I nominated her article for deletion. It is currently a puff piece constructed mostly out her own self-published blog entries as well as op-ed's and gossip sites unsuitable for a BLP. She does not appear to meet our notability guidelines in any way. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of those sources you cite demonstrates her notability, in fact they do the complete opposite, and argue that she's a minor blogger and unknown film critic who is mostly unheard of outside the blogosphere. Perhaps you should read them as they make the opposite argument you intended. So you have not demonstrated any notability at all nor have you shown how she meets our guideline for notability. I haven't argued that I like or dislike her at all here, so you must be confused. I've argued that the current version of her article does not meet our criteria for notability, and you've proven me correct in your reply. Finally, other articles do exist, but I haven't argued that either. I've argued that people like Abby Martin are far more notable but have been deleted for far less. Martin is a notable journalist with her own television show and with credits for directing a notable film and publishing notable articles and original content about the Occupy movement. But what we keep seeing is that contrary to the guidelines for notability, Wikipedia continues to promote and keep non-notable articles about conservatives, while biographies on the left are routinely deleted, and in Martin's case, protected from recreation. Yes, other stuff exists, but the deletion guidelines and rationales are the same. Yet in one case, a person is deleted, while in another they are kept. Has Wikipedia jumped the shark or has its conservative bias become more open and overt? Viriditas (talk) 06:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say she is "minor" and "unknown". The New York Times devoted eight paragraphs to her and called her "a well-known conservative with an interest in Islam". (emphasis added). I will take the New York Times' assessment of her notability over yours, thank you very much. By the way, I see no evidence that the New York Times has ever discussed Abby Martin, nor has any other major newspaper or magazine given her significant coverage that I have been able to find. I happen to be liberal politically myself, and want us to have articles about notable activists and journalists of all political persuasions. That's NPOV. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please tell me you are joking! Michael Cieply, an entertainment industry writer, not a political scientist nor an expert on politics, called Debbie Schlussel a "well-known conservative" in his NYT blog about the media. He also called her a "Michigan-based blogger and movie critic". And since when does having an entertainment industry blogger call you a "well-known conservative" make you notable? Never. And furthermore, if she is such a notable conservative, you should be able to cite authoritative experts on conservatism citing her as such. Instead, we have a 16,267 byte biography article with 33 references, of which 13 are self-published posts from Schlussel's blog, and the rest either mention her in passing or highlight her anti-Muslim blog postings in less than reliable and controversial sources that don't pass the sniff test, such as the Daily Mail and the Phoenix New Times. Long term consensus on the BLP board has maintained that the Daily Mail should not be used to cite controversial information in biographies. I also notice that there are several op-ed's in the article as well. There's no indication this subject meets the notability guidelines at all, nor has anyone been able to demonstrate that she has beyond a few incidents of gossip and bloggy mentions. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) or even WP:CREATIVE and tell me how her notability merits an article. Viriditas (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:NEWSBLOG, "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process" In the specific case of Media Decoder, it is not "his" blog, it is instead a major feature of the New York Times' ongoing coverage of media news, it is under editorial control, and several staff reporters in addition to Cieply contribute to it. There is no doubt that Media Decoder is a reliable source, and significant coverage there confers notability. If Media Decoder ran eight paragraphs on Abby Martin, then she would also be notable. The current presence of lower quality references in the article does not render the topic non-notable. Instead, that should be an inspiration to clean up the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice tangent there, but you haven't addressed my point. Even if we accept this source, it still doesn't show notability, it simply reports on an event, and a minor one at that. It is asserted by this source that the subject is a well known conservative. I've questioned that assertion. If she is a well known conservative, then clearly, she will be well known for something related to conservatism. Has her blog won awards? Has she made a significant contribution? How does this meet the notability guideline? As far as I can tell, she's notable for appearing in unreliable sources about gossip and innuendo. She's not notable, as you seem to indirectly assert (albeit unknowingly), for her dispute with the film studio. Again, this is a minor story with no lasting historical value. On the other hand, journalist Abby Martin has contributed to a significant body of work about the Occupy movement, and she writes and appears on a notable television show. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I simply don't understand why you keep trying to link the notability of Schlussel to that of Martin, as I see no reason whatsoever to link the two. We don't have a notability guideline for "conservative film critic blogger loud-mouthed combative anti-Muslim activists" all of which are aspects of her notability. People can be notable for being what you and I might agree are jerks. In my book, she's notable for all of that combined, because of significant coverage of her in reliable, independent sources. In your view, she isn't for some reason, which is fine. So be it. Let's hear what other editors think. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • An excellent point. The problem is, only unreliable sources show she is notable for being a jerk. And no sources discuss her significance, importance, or historical impact. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are these sources? They aren't in the current article. Why don't you do me a favor and show me one. Looking at the current article tells me she isn't notable for anything. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include:
 – NorthAmerica1000 08:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read closer for comprehension. Schlussel is not the the subject of multiple reliable published secondary sources. Loook at the list you just posted: The Guardian citation is an opinion piece by Michael Tomasky about the reaction to Lara Logan's assault. Not reliable for a BLP. The American Spectator citation is a blog post by Aaron Goldstein about a personal feud between Goldstein and Schlussel. Not reliable (nor relevant) for a BLP. The Phoenix New Times citation is an opinion piece by Stephen Lemons about right wing nuts. Not reliable for a BLP. The Associated Press story is about a lawsuit filed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations that tries to get Debbie Schlussel to stop using the name of their organization. The article says nothing whatsoever about Schlussel as a person and is good example of a WP:NOT#NEWS blurb that has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. There's nothing here for an encyclopedia article about Debbie Schlussel. I won't address the NYT piece because I already have several times above. It appears that nobody here actually understands the sourcing policies and guidelines and all the arguments for "keep" are based on this misunderstanding. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NEWSBLOG, the sources I provided are reliable, although some do read as opinion pieces. I need time to think this over more before entirely reconsidering. NorthAmerica1000 11:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upon consideration, the subject meets WP:BASIC, per the depth of coverage about the subject covered in reliable sources. NorthAmerica1000 13:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  As per the nutshell of WP:N, "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not [part of WP:What Wikipedia is NOT].  We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles..."  This topic has attracted the attention of the world at large as shown in reliable independent sources, and has done so over a period of time.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's hilarious. There isn't a single, reliable biographical source about the subject, simply because she has not attracted the attention of the world. She hasn't done anything notable to merit an article on Wikipedia, and the sources cited in this AfD demonstrate that beyond a reasonable doubt. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You claim that you have a position of reason, yet you resort to an appeal to emotion.  wp:Notability is not a matter of "doing" anything.  It is not defined by en:notable.  It is gauged by evidence from reliable sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no appeal to emtion here. I simply don't see a single reliable sources talking about her notability, her life, the significant things she's done, any anything else that makes a subject notable. All I see are opinion pieces, blog posts, and unreliable gossip sources. In any case, I see that there's a problem with the deletion process at large, and I will pursue it elsewhere. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Debbie_Schlussel_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1084275983"