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. Invalid arguments for keeping (e.g., that the article has been around a long time, or that participants have "heard of" the subject in an anecdotal sense, or that this "is an election year") are given no weight. The remaining consensus is for deletion. No prejudice against refunding to draft if any editor believes that a substantial rewrite can overcome the deficiencies identified. BD2412 T 15:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Iversen[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Kim Iversen (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)

Highly promotional tone, low notability, reliant on self-published material. Brownsc (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promotional and non-notable DGG ( talk ) 11:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This article is 14 years old. It seems a bit redundant to delete it now. The article has existed for years. I think it's notable enough as it is documenting a public figure. (MoonlightTulsi) (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2020
• Keep: Per MoonlightTulsi. Self-published & a few primary sources should be removed. Her YouTube account is an external source. Othen than that, the article is good enough to pass Wikipedia:NJOURNALIST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'd heard Kim Iversen's name mentioned a few times in passing by other journalists and political commentators and one of her videos just popped up for me in a YouTube "Recommended" list. I appreciated being able to learn at least something about her at Wikipedia. I don't see a compelling reason to delete this article. PCMartinSeattle (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Kim is a recognized radio and new media journalist. I don't see any reason to delete this article. lodragandraoidh 23:55 15 March 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 04:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete, article fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST, all references are either passing mentions, primary sources or unreliable. Often, they are all three at once. The Keep votes are so stunningly awful the above conversation probably qualifies as a Delete per NOTAVOTE. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC) I actually did a bit more digging and I found this: [1] article by Bellingcat, which contributes a lengthy paragraph towards Iversen being paid by a Pro-Bashar al-Assad lobby. This, combined with the Austin 360 article already referenced in the article, might be enough for her to pass GNG. However, the latter article is suspiciously promotional in tone, and the article has been so heavily brigaded it might need to be WP:TNT deleted anyway, and if it stays it definitely needs to be Semi-protected to prevent vandalism. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete for similar reasons to Devonian Wombat. Two sources might slightly be enough for WP:GNG, but it would probably just be a permanant stub and not worth keeping. Also, there person above who is going off about the nominator being a stalker needs to fix their tone and learn what makes an article notable, instead of spouting none sense and making accusations. Same goes for the users who are saying the article sould be kept because she's "amazing." --Adamant1 (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why Wikipedia would shut down Kim Iversen’s page! She is a professional progressive journalist who’s voice is valued and appreciated by thousands! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkinInGame (talk • contribs) 05:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Kim is an influential progressive political commentator. I'm interested in reading wikipedia articles about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.112.77.185 (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete Kim. This page is fine and gives information I want to know about her. Deleting her would be capitulating to the hatred of some bad faith anon.Mattisx (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kim is an amazing journalist and astrologer. Keep free speech alive! Nilsa toledo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilsa Toledo (talk • contribs) 04:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems fine and does not seem like material fit for deletion. It's an article about a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekDudage138 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the page up and DO NOT CAPITULATE TO STALKERS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CB01:1546:6DFA:CCCE:9936:9E0D (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT delete this page. Kim is great. Delete/banish/block the stalker who is trying to get her page deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.252.252 (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE! This is a real person, I know this person & they should not be erased based on a lone individual who is working maliciously to harm the public image of this individual by getting them erased. They are a progressive radio host & the information in their Wikipedia page pertains to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:840:1d40:592e:8683:9f4f:f5c3 (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete. Influential online commentator who has a growing platform and audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.53.56.174 (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please Do not delete she is very famous and has a huger audience then many of the other people who have articles on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.10.141 (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It looks like someone is heavily canvassing here. Dorama285 (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: !votes that are obviously canvassed and do not refer to Wikipedia policies and guidelines will most likely be given no weight by the closing administrator. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. These comments above are hilarious. You can definitely tell that those were also sock'ed. This is some WikiPR level stupidness. Saying things like "Delete/banish/block the stalker" or "a lone individual who is working maliciously to harm the public image" isn't going to be taken seriously. Can we just wrap this up as blatant advertising / WP:CANVAS? dibbydib Ping me! ^💬/_✏ 22:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see even one of the first "keep" votes was also from a single-purpose account. Dorama285 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Iversen's bio has been around since 2006 and has had no complaints until now. This is an election year, and she is easily one of Tulsi Gabbard's most influential supporters. This Buzzfeed article credits her with bringing Tulsi to the attention of the public, mentioning her alongside Jimmy Dore and Joe Rogan. I would be wary of making big moves like deletion of a longstanding bio during an election year if it is even slightly possible the sudden urge to delete, or the !votes in support, might be politically motivated. The media hates Tulsi, as does the DNC, given that they claim there are only two candidates when in fact Tulsi is still running. Wikipedia needs to be careful about appearing sexist or politically biased, even though the editing pool is 85% male and, composed of humans, biased AF. This deletion discussion can wait until after the election, IMO. petrarchan47คุก 00:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That article only mentions Iversen in passing, and even that is within a quote. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Enough coverage to establish notability as a media personality. Not that I feel comfortable taking the side of the obvious vote canvassers here... 1292simon (talk) 12:27, 24 March 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.