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 No consensus. Randykitty (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Tunney

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject appears to me to be notable for only one event, creating the occupywallst.org website (although since my CSD request was denied, that may be arguable). At any rate, even if Tunney is notable, there's not much to salvage from the article as it stands. If Tunney is notable for anything other than creating the Occupy Wall Street website, the article doesn't mention it; the bulk of the article simply goes into unnecessary detail about Tunney's political views. Tunney may perhaps be notable enough to warrant an article, but this one isn't it. Anarkinsey (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- In the grand scheme of things, Justine isn't very notable. She's a private citizen whose visibility has come mainly from being attacked publicly for her views in some vicious gossip blogs and tabloid rags, and that's about it. As such her Wikipedia article mirrors the tone of the sources about her, and it's not pretty. This article is mostly an extended attack against her, which easily falls afoul of WP:BLP, and should thus be deleted. --Cyde Weys 18:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The "grand scheme of things" is not Wikipedia's notability standard, it is coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, which is definitely fulfilled here. Occupy Wall Street was a historically significant event. Tunney has argued that she was the hidden leader behind the scenes of Occupy Wall Street; whether that is true or not I do not know, but that is what she claims. In any case, the article is clearly not mostly about that event. She is also notable for getting into a public argument with her former compatriats in OWS, and for her political opinions post-OWS. The Advocate is not a "gossip blog" or "tabloid rag". Neither is the Daily Telegraph! If no-one has written anything positive about Tunney's petition to make Eric Schmidt CEO of America, which even Tunney herself has admitted was "silly", then of course the article is not going to portray it in a positive way. I have acknowledged twice in the article the possibility, as discussed in a reference, that Tunney may be a troll rather than a sincere right-winger, but even this comes off as negative, so I can't win. If you have any suggestions about how to rewrite the article to make it more neutral, please feel free to edit the article. Update! Thanks to information contained in Tunney's own internet postings, I have found coverage of yet another event she was involved in, and added that to the article. Also, I think that Anarkinsey is abusing this deletion venue as a means to badger me into deleting bits of the article s/he doesn't like, as s/he admits that Tunney "may" be notable.--greenrd (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – That the article is seriously flawed was the whole point of proposing this AfD. I assure you that I wasn't trying to badger you into anything (please assume good faith!); the point of saying that Tunney may be notable was to say that while I believe that the article in its current form is beyond help, from my understanding of Wikipedia policies, Tunney may be notable enough to warrant some kind of article (or at least that the administrator who denied my CSD request seemed to think so). Also, while your write-up on the "Oogle" incident is interesting, Tunney is only mentioned in passing in the source cited, so unfortunately I think it fails consideration as a second 'event' per "significant coverage" in WP:BASIC. Anarkinsey (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but in the petition incident, she is not merely mentioned in passing. Not only is she notable for that, it surely deserves some kind of award for ass-kissing - I've never heard of any other American proposing their employer's CEO as President-For-Life. I mean, it's not just notable, it's an interesting and surprising (not to mention hilarious) incident too.--greenrd (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails wp:blp, not seeing any signs of significant coverage to pass wp:gng. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first reason for deletion lacks specificity - fails BLP how? The second reason for deletion basically defies common-sense. If there were no significant coverage, I wouldn't have been able to write the long solidly-sourced article that I did.--greenrd (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BLP1E requires that all three condition be met, but #2 and #3 clearly fail. #2 fails because she is not a low profile person. #3 fails because the event was significant and well covered nationally and internationally. There is no doubt that she has received significant and in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. I am One of Many (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To be a notable living person, you need sources talking about the person. She has that met just from the Occupany website, so the article should be kept. The article does need some work. Frmorrison (talk)

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.