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 delete. The 'delete' arguments are more solidly grounded in policy, particularly in making the case that she is only known for one event. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Herzog[edit]

Katie Herzog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The sources here are insufficient to establish notability. The sources are either by the subject of the article, opinion, or brief mentions in a source not primarily about her Rab V (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If the BLP's name is the first two words of an NYT article, of whatever sort, that's a dead giveaway that the piece counts. [1]. Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The NYT article states that Herzog "was a largely unknown freelance journalist." Does the reaction to one article push her over? Agree with nom that not enough RS are actually about her. Caro7200 (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one event does not make someone notable. Cancel culture has become far too common to make every victim default notable. That an article leads by dropping your name when you are "a largely unknown freelance journalist" does not make you default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Tepid Keep she's author of an influential substack about dog neutering Moose Nuggets and if her page is deleted, she'll go on and on about her wiki cancelling on her "podcast" 2601:645:4201:BBD0:D42B:FC32:6002:903B (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jesse, was that you? *Dan T.* (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are not enough reliable sources about this journalist to meet WP:GNG. Herzog's claim to notability seems to be writing an article on detransitioning for which she received criticism. Reliable independent sources cover that incident to the exclusion of anything more substantive, making this a BLP subject to WP:BIO1E. gobonobo ^{+ c} 07:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Journalist who is mentioned in reliable sources and writes for multiple reliable sources. Nomination for deletion is bizarre. Are people concerned about disk space? This feels like a sock puppet move tbh...
• Comment: The subject of the article is linking to this deletion discussion from her social media here. If new editors and fans of the Herzog are coming from off-site canvassing please be aware this isn't a majority vote. Substantive arguments based on wikipedia policy are given more weight in AFD discussions. Also please stay WP:CIVIL; don't accuse editors without evidence of being sock puppets simply because they do not agree with you. Rab V (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Also covered in https://spectator.us/purple-podcasters-blocked-reported-singal-herzog-political-orphanage/.— James Cantor (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSP states that articles from The Spectator should be treated as opinion pieces or newsblogs, which can not be used to establish notability. Rab V (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I won't write this in "vote-like" style as I have at least a minor "conflict of interest" being a follower of her/Jesse's podcast who likes it, so I'm not an objective observer. But I think even if I didn't I'd be at least mildly on the side of keeping because I think the deletionism of this site is excessive; we're not a paper document with limited space, so why not cover even mildly notable things/people, if it can be done in neutral point of view? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This article does not meet the criteria for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C3:8000:5B40:6D89:9883:6605:20F0 (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to fall on the wrong side of the only known for one thing line. Writers need to be written about to warrant entries here, and I'm just not seeing enough evidence of that happening in a sustained way. Nor does the event itself seem to have been a matter of lasting interest. One magazine article that got a hostile reception is not a substantial body of work. XOR'easter (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A laid-off journalist for a paper with a circulation of over 80 000, local at best. delete Oaktree b (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems like a pretty clear WP:BLP1E case. AFAICT the only notable thing she was close to was her writing a controversial magazine article, and that doesn't seem to warrant a BLP. Perhaps some of this content could be moved into a page about the article and its reception if there's consensus that the controversy is notable, but from a cursory Google search I don't think it is. SreySros (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not meeting the higher standard at WP:BLP. Likely doesn't meet the WP:GNG either. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2020 (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.