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. Sandstein 21:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Althia Raj[edit]

Althia Raj (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)

no actual evidence of notability . All available sources seem to either be items she has written herself, of passing mentions. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep additional references have been added. Ottawa Bureau Chief for Postmedia and HuffPo is notable. Nixon Now (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can reference it better than this. The references are a press release from the Huffington Post on a press release distribution platform, the primary source directory of her own writing for the Huffington Post, an "our contributors" blurb on the website of a TV show she's a contributor to, and a Q&A interview on a blog — which means that exactly none of them represent media coverage about her in reliable sources that are independent of her, because the ones that are reliable aren't independent of her and the one that's independent of her isn't reliable. A person does not get a Wikipedia article by having "coverage" from her own employers in staff profiles and press releases, or by getting interviewed by bloggers — she has to be the subject of reliable source coverage in real media other than her own employers to clear WP:GNG, and no journalist (no, not even Rosemary Barton) can ever make any notability claim at all that "inherently" exempts her from having to have that reliable source coverage just because her own employers' websites technically verify that she exists. Regardless of what a journalist's notability claim is, it's not the making of the claim that gets her over WP:JOURNALIST, but the quality of the sourcing that can be provided to support the claim — but blogs and staff "coverage" from her own employers don't cut it. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • By this argument all stubs should be deleted because they are not extensively sourced. The question is not whether sourcing is extensive but whether it is sufficient to establish who she is and what jobs she's held. It is. Then does the fact that she has been the Ottawa Bureau Chief (ie chief political correspondent) of several major news organizations make her notable? Are the positions notable? If yes then the article should remain even if sourcing is rudimentary or at stub level.Nixon Now (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, people are not kept just because their own primary source profiles on the websites of their own employers verify that they exist. It's a core principle of GNG that a GNG pass is based on the existence of appropriate and substantive and GNG-passing reliable sources, not on their all necessarily being in the article already, so that doesn't automatically translate into a blanket "delete all stubs" rule — one has to check whether better sourcing is available or not before deeming a stub to be deletable. But if somebody questions such a stub, then it's not enough to just theorize that maybe better GNG-worthy sources might eventually start existing — GNG-worthy sources have to be shown to exist before "GNG is based on the existence of appropriate sources, not the state of sourcing present in the article right now" becomes a valid reason to keep — and it's not enough that her own primary source web presence on the websites of her own employers nominally verifies the fact that she exists. She has to be demonstrably, not just theoretically, the subject of reliable source coverage in sources other than her own employers before a Wikipedia article becomes appropriate. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete again without prejudice; I looked for good independent sources and fell completely flat, as per @Bearcat. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't need to be a critical biography, it can be a stub. Sources are sufficient to establish who she is and what jobs she's held. Is being and having been Ottawa Bureau Chief (ie chief political correspondent) for several important media organizations notable? If so, then the article has merit.Nixon Now (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No job that any person can hold is so "inherently" notable that the article would be automatically kept just because her own primary source profiles on the websites of her own employers verify that she exists. To be notable for this, independent reliable sources have to be writing their own editorial content about her and her work — even a stub still has to have some evidence of reliable source coverage about her, not just her own primary source presence on the websites of her own employers, before it can be kept. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable journalist who regularly appears on television media, has moderated an Ontario PC leadership debate. -- Evans1982 (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on television and moderating debates are not automatic inclusion freebies that exempt a journalist from having to be the subject of reliable source coverage about her. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Informed political commentator who appears frequently on TV. A clear thinker and good communicator. -- Quist (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do not keep a inadequately sourced article just because of editors' opinions about the subject's communication skills. Our notability standards for journalists are based on being able to properly source the subject as having attained certain specific, quantifiable accomplishments, not on people's subjective opinions about whether they're good at their jobs or not — every single person who exists at all could always find somebody who thinks they're good at their job, so if somebody saying that were all it took to get an article kept we'd have to keep an article about every single person who exists at all and then we'd just be LinkedIn. And conversely, everybody who exists at all could also always find somebody else who dislikes them and thinks they're bad at their jobs and should therefore be deleted. So it's reliable source coverage about her that has to tell us whether she's notable enough or not, and individual people's opinions about the quality of her work carry no weight. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:JOURNALIST, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Her work is regularly cited by other news organizations that she is independent from. Additionally, she passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Lonehexagon (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What significant coverage in sources that are independent of her is being shown where, exactly? Even in the new sources that have been added since this was initiated, she's the subject in any non-trivial way of exactly one of them, while all of the others are still mere namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things. Those are not the kind of sources it takes to make a journalist notable. Bearcat (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks an adequate level of independent, in depth coverage. In addition, far too many of the article sources are produced by someone she is associated with (e.g. HuffPo), which is the same thing-- non-independent.104.163.148.25 (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The references include several reliable secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of those reliable secondary sources are about her, but all just namecheck her existence within coverage of other things. Every single source here that's about her to the degree needed to count for a bean toward demonstrating her notability is non-independent "coverage" from her own employers. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not every single source: 'You're lying,' Huffington Post reporter says to senator about spending audit leak. Also, Samara, which posted an interview with her, is a charitable organization promoting civic engagement and an independent third party: HOW'D YOU GET THAT JOB? SAMARA INTERVIEWS ALTHIA RAJ, HUFFPO'S OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF Raj is not an employee of Samara. Nixon Now (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Q&A interviews in which a person is talking about themselves do not assist in demonstrating notability, and "coverage" on the organizational blogs of charitable organizations does not assist notability. So no, Samara doesn't provide an ounce of help for two reasons. And as for that CBC article, it contains less than 100 words of editorial content by the CBC itself, and is otherwise just screenshots of a tweetstorm — so it doesn't count as a data point toward passage of GNG either, because people do not get to tweet themselves into self-published "notable because they tweet" status. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it shows notable enough to be interviewed by an independent non-partisan public policy organization such as Samara. There's certainly no reason why a feature interview (where by definition the subject is talking about themselves) would not be evidence of notability as long as the interview is conducted by an independent, credible third party. I see nothing in WP:Notability that excludes interviews as a source showing notability. Nixon Now (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Notability can be demonstrated only by media outlets (not organizational blogs) writing about the subject in the third person, and can never be demonstrated by any source — regardless of provenance — in which the subject is talking about themselves in the first person. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability does not say say notability can be demonstrated "only by media outlets", but by "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Samara fits the bill. Nixon Now (talk)

The very definition of a reliable source is that it's some form of media (e.g. a newspaper, a magazine, a radio or television newsgathering organization, a documentary film or a book), and not the self-published blog of an advocacy organization that isn't a media outlet. So no, Samara does not fit the bill. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing the term media referring to mass media and media referring to communication medium (ie audio, video, text etc). Nixon Now (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not confusing anything. In Wikipedia's notability criteria, "media" does not mean "any audio, video or text based evidence whatsoever, inclusive of blogs and Flickr photos and YouTube clips and primary sources", but "media outlets in the sense of newspapers and magazines and books". So I'm using "media" correctly, in terms of how "media" relates to "notability" on Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate the source of this quote: "media outlets in the sense of newspapers and magazines and books". I cannot find that statement in either WP:NOTABILITY or WP:RS or anything approximating it (which is actually the point I've been making). Nixon Now (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V includes an explicit and specific list of the types of sources we're looking for: academic journals, university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, mainstream newspapers and radio or television content as long as it's verifiably archived somewhere. It also explicitly deprecates blogs, outside of content published in blog format by a media outlet that would still be a reliable source otherwise (e.g. Kady O'Malley's content on the CBC News website is not deprecated just because she "blogs" shorter pieces throughout the day rather than filing a single report on a big topic, because she's still doing it for, and still accountable to, the CBC.) Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so can I conclude from the above that your quotation wasn't an actual quotation but just something you made up and put quotation marks around? In any case, WP:V deprecates blogs that are self-published sources, not blogs belonging to an institution. Nixon Now (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People are allowed to summarize Wikipedia policy, and are not restricted to quoting it literally verbatim. My summary was 100 per cent correct about what "media" means in a Wikipedia notability context, and the fact that it was a summary of our reliable sourcing rules rather than a verbatim copy-paste of the entire policy document does not make that fact less true. And no, WP:BLOGS does not only deprecate individual Blogspot blogs, but does also deprecate group blogs — the only way a blog gets exempted from WP:BLOGS is if it's content published in a blog format by a newsgathering outlet that would still otherwise be an acceptable reliable source anyway (i.e. Kady O'Malley at the CBC) and therefore falls under the separate rule for WP:NEWSBLOGS. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing is one thing, fabricating a quotation is quite another. Nixon Now (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody fabricated any quotations. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You put "media outlets in the sense of newspapers and magazines and books" in quotation marks even though that statement wasn't a quote ie you fabricated a quotation even if you did not intend to. In future, do not use quotation marks unless you are actually quoting a source. Nixon Now (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation marks do not only indicate a direct quotation from another source; they can also be used to simply encapsulate an entire phrase as representing a single concept, such as contrasting "X as in this definition over here" with "X as in that other definition over there". Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Such usage is incorrect and unprofessional. See Quotation marks in English. Nixon Now (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2018 (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.