Deletion SortingProject (talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts .mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Journalism. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add ((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName)) to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding ((subst:delsort|Journalism|~~~~)) to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Journalism.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Journalism/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Journalism[edit]

Rachel McTavish

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

Fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Cowles Jr.

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

Not seeing anything here that satisfies WP:BIO. Sourcing is really inadequate. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, Law, Connecticut, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Romeo (reporter)

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

Fails WP:BIO. "Pennsylvania's Most Influential Reporters" is just a list of reporters that doesn't list their accomplishments. Schierbecker (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Radio, Television, Politics, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarkanath Sanzgiri

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

Poorly written and referenced; appears to have never been referenced or written neutrally. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Television, and India. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The second link talks about a cricket sports reporter, then this I find [1], also about a sports reporter, but I don't see that the current article is about a sports reporter. I'm unsure what the subject of the article does for notability, but I can't find sourcing. It appears to have been copied verbatim from a CV or a personal biography site. Oaktree b (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Love

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

Not notable independent of a 2016 win on the The Bachelorette (Australian TV series). There is no relevant material from reliable sources not already at the target, so deletion rather than a merge seems warranted (WP:BIO). My searches show no further notable activity, the (former) casual job as a newsreader not seeming sufficient. Klbrain (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, Fashion, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noel McCullagh

AfDs for this article:

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

This article seems to have had quite a history, including as past AfD, but in its current state, it simply does not assert notability, pass GNG, or even meet VER for its full light content (and for any noting that it was once x10+ the size, at least some of the deleted content was definitely not appropriate). A regular journalist and failed electoral candidate is simply not qualified. SeoR (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Politics. SeoR (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see anything about a journalist or political candidate. What's given now isn't sufficient as sourcing. No sourcing at all in Google. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Ireland, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This version of the article makes it clear was that his notability was as a patient who had been prescribed cannabis-based medicine that the Irish government wouldn't allow into that country. The article might be moved to something like Irish government prohibition and recognition of cannabis-based medicines. His health status is relevant because it is why he was prescribed the medicine and why the Irish government (I think) eventually changed its mind and allowed access to the medicine. His candidacy in the election is relevant because it was a way to get attention to the campaign to allow access to the medicine. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for engaging, and exploring the history; I also did give these points thought, but (i) they're not in the article now, and most related content was removed for good reasons, and (ii) I'm not sure that the subject was instrumental or driving in the debates around those topics, rather they were an object in them. I really do not see notability for them as a biographical subject. SeoR (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even looking at the old version of the article, this feels like WP:NOTNEWS. He wasn't elected and was only really notable for the WP:BLP1E of not being able to enter Ireland. I don't know how you rehabilitate the article through editing, either, considering how much was correctly removed over a decade ago now. SportingFlyer T·C 10:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The old version of the article relies on a Sunday Tribune whose link is dead and which I can't find archived, and a second one which is available, but only has a single mention of McCullagh in the lead. That is not sufficient to establish independent notability. Cortador (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only going on its current content not its history, a failed election candidate is not notable. Spleodrach (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could perhaps get a line or two on cannabis policy in Ireland; even with the explanations above, I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aliza Landes

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Of the listed reliable sources, the most she gets is three paragraphs in the Tablet Magazine one. The i24 video source has her answering two questions, partially but not wholly about a project she was involved in. The Atlantic is a single sentence plus a paragraph quoted from Tablet (and thus adds nothing for notability per WP:NBASIC.) Forum (which may or may not be a reliable source) has one paragraph plus on sentence on her. Sources regarding the Wall Street Journal article mention her in passing (or, in one used the article author re-added, is on screen for a fraction of a second while showing an image of one of the other sources.) Coverage of the WSJ article here is problematic, as our article's subject had no known involvement in the WSJ article -- the link is that she is pals with a co-author of said article, with no involvement by her in the article having been shown. (Creator of this article has been highly focused on that WSJ article, as can be seen by their work on UNRWA October 7 controversy, their creation of a now-deleted attack page on the co-author of the article and of a scheduled-to-be-deleted category about the co-author.) Further sources listed are not independent. I'm not finding anything better through Google including Google News. Newspapers.com search brings up three paragraphs (one about her, two quotes) in a 37-paragraph story on the IDF's social media in the St. Louis Jewish Light and her being quoted as part of 2 paragraphs from a much larger Boston Globe story about a Jewish school she was attending when she was 14 (and I have not sought to verify that the Globe quote is not from a different person of similar name, because it's inconsequential in any case.) Nat Gertler (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your characterization of the Carrie Keller-Lynn as an "attack page" is disparagement for which I ask you to apologize. I was writing about a major controversy in journalism, where front-page articles in US newspapers of record appear to be nearly lifted from the Israeli State and where new journalists with close connections to the Israeli State suddently appear as authors. I did not create the controversy, I only documented it. You have in the past accused me of WP:SYNTH; I did not say that Keller-Lynn and Landes' relationship is indicative of any bias in the WSJ article, but rather I documented the significant coverage of that issue being raised, among others, at the heart of the controversy about the article.

Secondly, you accusation that I am "highly focused" on the UNRWA October 7 controversy article...which may or may not be coded disparagement, implying that I am obsessed. Yes, I have made many edits, and frankly gone in circles are because of non-stop removals by you and another editor who appear to have a political agenda to remove any content which might cast a light on the influence of the Israeli State in the US press, however I do not accuse you of that as I don't know exactly what your motivation is. The reasons given are usually pedantic. I spend literally hours and hours, gathering the exact quotations and permutations of RS to support points that were clearly supported already by other RS and WP:COMMONSENSE. I have done so despite many of the reasons given not even being WP policy. I guess I did a good enough job finding the exact right references that now you are submitting the article for deletion.

Why not lay off the disparagement and simply ask people to decide whether the subject of the article is notable or not?

Be aware I will not back down and refrain from adding well-supported, balanced and truthful material about Israel/Palestine simply because of non-stop attempts to delete information that doesn't happen to reflect positively on the Israeli State.Keizers (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Positive or not, this person hardly has anything covering her, and I'm unsure what the claim to notability is. Running a social medial presence is rather routine these days. Even in 2009 it was somewhat routine. Oaktree b (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Cryptocurrency, Military, Advertising, Israel, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Atlantic article is fine (rather briefly mentions her), not strictly about this individual. Rest are non-RS or not even about this person. Founding a social media policy is fine, it's nothing notable. I don't see any additional coverage about this person. Delete for unclear notability and no sourcing regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, including per WP:NOT and WP:BLP policy, e.g. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives This article includes a substantial "UNRWA/Wall Street Journal controversy" section with what seems to be an WP:UNDUE focus on a report of a screenshot of a negative tweet about the subject that is extensively quoted in the article, and another quote of reported sensationalism about the subject, and a summary of a report about more tweet comments. While some of this can be fixed by editing, the minimal sourcing available to support notability as well as a neutral and balanced article according to WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BLP policies support deletion at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a substantial edit to the article to remove content based on policy concerns raised in my comment above; this is the version of the article I was referring to when commenting. Beccaynr (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Carrier

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

I am struggling to find any significant coverage of Carrier at all. Only four hits in ProQuest. All the references are churnalism from 2013. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, Radio, Armenia, California, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rather routine career. It would have been interesting to note why she passed away at a young age, but the article has no information on that point. I don't see GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oaktree b: No RS coverage of her death, but one Instagram post says breast cancer. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Oh, that's very sad. Oaktree b (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Complete lack of notability WP:NOTMEMORIAL. 84.146.2.66 (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Mires

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

This is a resume, not an article with reliable sources and significant coverage to demonstrate notability. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Television. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, California, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak, weak keep. There's an article about her (Northern Virginia Magazine) and another with substantial info about her (Khaleez Times), plus a few interviews (HuffPost, Gulf News). Clarityfiend (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Rodriguez (journalist)

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

I am not seeing any actual significant coverage of her that would meet the WP:GNG. Lone ref is a 2010 biography published by her then-employer, and I am not finding much significant chatter about her in the time since. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, and Florida. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dy

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

Lack of notability, appears to fail WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 00:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Christianity, and Philippines. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 00:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article makes no attempt to claim notability, clearly fails GNG. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 01:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails any measure of notability. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant sources. Nothing on the wikis in other languages, either.— Moriwen (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anat Schwartz

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST and falls afoul of WP:BLP1E. As with another, similar BLP in the I/P area that was recently deleted, we have an anomaly among BLPs about journalists, an area rife with COI in which many if not most of which are self-promotional. This one has the effect if not the intent of discrediting the subject with regard to a particular article on the Gaza war. Like that other BLP, this is a WP:MILL individual who has received negative attention from people who don't like her. Coretheapple (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Israel. Coretheapple (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hmm, an "individual [usually] receives negative attention from people who don't like her". That's kind of a fact; nothing incisive. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am actually okay if we instead create a new article specifically about the issues surrounding the NYT Screams without Words report instead of focusing on this woman. We have self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell focusing on his protest incident instead of just "Aaron Bushnell" as a person. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of coverage of her in Hebrew beyond this single event, meets GNG by a mile and the coverage is not limited to a single event. The article may be overly focused on that, but the coverage is not. See for example coverage from 2017. nableezy - 15:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this individual in fact passes WP:JOURNALIST criterion 4(c): The person's work (or works) has ... won significant critical attention. Also, does not fall under WP:BLP1E per Nableezy. starship .paint (RUN) 15:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per nableezy and starship.paint this individual does not fail WP:JOURNALIST and WP:BLP1E is not applicable. Any problems with the article content can be solved by editing and discussion on the talk page, not by deletion. Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the nominator has called this page and WP:ATTACK page but I strongly believe that this is not an attack page. It might be WP:NEGATIVESPIN but at least some versions of this page are not a deliberate attack against the article subject. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I raised WP:ATTACK on another page so yes, that is correct, I think it falls within the four corners of that policy. I think the fact that the essence of her reporting was just confirmed today by the UN makes my concerns even more magnified than previous. So thanks for pointing that out. Coretheapple (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it falls within the four corners of that policy Nonsense. And the UN report has nothing to do with it. Selfstudier (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a fundamental misreading of WP:ATTACK. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore if this page were to be nominated for speedy deletion under ((db-attack)), I'm nearly 100% confident that would fail under any version in the revision history. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Strong pass of WP:JOURNALIST. I can not see received negative attention from people who don't like her as a serious summary of the article or of the public's interest in this topic. For WP:BLP1E see WP:NOTBLP1E#"One dominant event".—Alalch E. 16:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Essential to understanding the misinformation that has spread during the Israel-Hamas war. Salmoonlight (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Especially while the story is playing out. This is raising issues about the credibility of several organizations, including the New York Times and at least two espionage organizations, often referred to as "intelligence" organizations, implying it's intelligent to keep secrets and provide war propaganda. Although if another article, as someone suggested, is created a merge is worth considering. Zacherystaylor (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Nableezy and others. Would support Sameboat's proposal for an article about the Screams Without Words controversy and then merge proposal as suggested by Zacherystaylor. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was referring to Sameboat's suggestion, for what it's worth, but it's still worth consideration. I'm not aware that such an article has been created. Zacherystaylor (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move: I also support creating an article on "Screams Without Words", to which Anat Schwartz can subsequently be merged. The comment I wrote on the talk page : I would personally lean towards moving Anat Schwartz to a ‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7 article. I agree that Schwartz isn't notable outside of her article, of which she isn't even the sole author. News coverage related to the NYT article, besides "Between the Hammer and the Anvil", doesn't really focus on Schwartz anyway, but I think that that coverage is becoming significant enough (The Intercept, CNN, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Al Jazeera, op-eds in The Nation and Jacobin, etc.) to warrant an article. I don't see why it would fail WP:SUSTAINED because A) the article in and of itself has had a big impact on public discourse since its publication, B) the controversial aspect of the article also dates to at least January (the "Daily" episode) and has had at least another development (Schwartz's Twitter likes) even before the recent Intercept article, and C) the Intercept story has already snowballed into another story, with the leak investigation by the NYT and related allegations of racial profiling. WikiFouf (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP: BEFORE, I can see passing WP: JOURNALIST as the sources about her were written by out general reliable sources. Then, also passed apart from WP: GNG, there is WP: CREATIVE...since she was noted of her journalistic skill by Al Jazeera. All the best. Otuọcha (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:JOURNALIST, Anat Schwartz does not pass the notability bar for journalists. Actually, below WP:JOURNALIST bar by a substantial margin:

Anat Schwartz is a junior journalist. As the article shows, she started working as a journalist for the NYT on 2023 - too junior to be an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
Anat Schwartz is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Even the NYT article provides an angle shared by many other journalists and journals.
Anat Schwartz did not create a significant or well-known work or collective body of work - no Pulitzer award or any other significant journalist achievement.
Her work never: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. GidiD (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- So, if you combine the Delete voters arguments above, way above, and below, her work is claimed to have not won significant critical attention, but also this is an ATTACK page and has the effect if not the intent of discrediting the subject with regard to a particular article on the Gaza war. You can't have it both ways, in totality the arguments are contradictory. starship .paint (RUN) 02:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You do not have to be a senior journalist or a good journalist to be a journalist or to or only or predominantly be a journalist to be subjectable to WP:NJOURNALIST. The "junior journalist" argument is special pleading. Anat Schwartz is indeed not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique, and her work has indeed never: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. But it has (c) won significant critical attention. Because she did create a significant or well-known work. A work that was the primary subject of coverage in various other works. The NYT article is a significant and well-known work, and it received widespread attention and highly substantive critique. If we were to construe "significant" to be limited to "good works", "celebrated works", "Pulitzer-prize-winning works", that would not be good. It would be systemically non-neutral. It is not about awarding someone an article for their good work, about giving them recognition on the grounds of their praiseworthy journalistic work, it's not about celebrating good things, it's about having an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia covers equally the good, the bad, and the in-between. —Alalch E. 13:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there is a pass of CREATIVE, the article is an ATTACK page. Schwartz, who is a very rounded media professional, with a well-balanced article on Hewiki, seems to have become a cause célèbre in conspiracy theories. I believe that AFDISNOTCLEANUP and articles should be corrected and improved. That said, I do not see people succeeding in balancing this article and this is a BLP that cannot be kept as an attack page. There are some comments on the talk page, there is the nomination, a brief discussion on my talk page, GidiD's opinion in edit conflict with my own (we are alike in more than just our names...), and now there also is my opinion on this AfD. I hope that this will be sufficient to protect this living person from attacks on Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a fair point of labeling all the disadvantageous points against Schwartz as attack, IOW defamatory. We may delete this article per BLP1E or other policies, but the new article about the controversial NYT report will retain all the "attacking" details so long as all those points are backed by reliable sources. Your goal of "protecting this living person from attacks" would not work by deleting this article. Her journalistic integrity is being questioned justly, and this is something should be documented with our best ability. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This response doesn't relate so much to my opinion, set aside one central piece of it that it is spot on: We may delete this article per BLP1E or other policies. I'll try to refer to the rest, have given it some thought, just not very related to my points. gidonb (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article created via Hebrew WP so arguably notable even prior to the latest developments on the notability front, easy GNG pass and the NYT story is already sustained.Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering that the subject's reporting was confirmed today by the United Nations, therefore effectively discrediting the thrust of this article (i.e. the effort to discredit her work) my concerns about this article are magnified. https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1235824305/israel-sexual-assault-rape-hamas-attack-un-report This article serves no useful purpose but to focus attention on a fringe theory of the Oct. 7 attacks, namely that the widely reported, indeed, self-reported (by the rapists) sexual violence in Israel did not take place. Coretheapple (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has always been about which things are fact and which are allegation, the UN report will help in that regard. It certainly did not confirm the subject's reporting over which there is and will remain controversy. Selfstudier (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but how is this relevant to the discussion about whether or not to keep the article? The existence of an article about the subject is not intended to discredit her work. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the actual report. Go to 55 and 86. Salmoonlight (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting... The mission team was unable to establish the prevalence of sexual violence and lack of cooperation by the State of Israel with relevant United Nations bodies with an investigative mandate and information gathered by the mission team was in large part sourced to Israeli national institutions. starship .paint (RUN) 04:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move and/or redirect to Screams Without Words per WP:BLP1E. She is only notable for having written one controversial (and, allegedly, discredited) article. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2024
BLP1E does not apply. Please see WP:NOTBLP1E#"One dominant event". There is coverage of her prior to the reaction to the NYT article; she is the director of a noteworthy 2017 documentary film, for example. ... In the language of policy: Reliable sources do not cover the person only in the context of a single event, she has received coverage for other things as well, she is not a low-profile individual and was not a low-profile individual even prior to the latest event, which is a significant event, and the individual’s role in it is substantial and is well documented. Fails on every count. Colossal BLP1E fail.—Alalch E. 12:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per starship.paint and nableezy, meets the criteria defined by WP:JOURNALIST. BLP1E does not apply for reasons articulated by several editors above, but if the page is not kept as a biographical article, I am also not opposed to repurposing/restructuring the page to be focused on the controversial article she authored. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this subject is, in fact, notable for reasons other than this NYT article. However, this article needs a total top-to-bottom rewrite and some sort of arbitration remedies because the mini edit wars going on are incredibly detrimental to this article. Articles are being misquoted and selectively quoted to include incorrect information. It very much would fall under WP:ATTACK. The sourcing is almost entirely to a collection of marginally reliable sources. Efforts to include accurate information about the subject, about her filmmaking history, for example, are repeatedly erased; no efforts are made to source or clean up such info, just wiping. As evidenced above, editors currently fixated on the page have clear biases and agendas with the "purpose" or "point" of this page, many of which spill into the conspiratorial. Some of the delete votes above are on the very basis of the inability to clean up this BLP, a reasonable concern. And if there isn't any concerted will to actually fix this article wholesale, then I actually would flip my vote to a Delete since, even if a subject is a reliable, this encyclopedia should not be hosting malicious, baseless, or potentially defamatory claims, certainly not as facts (rather than for the substance of allegations made by certain parties or conspiratorial groups). Jbbdude (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the arguments starship.paint and nableezy have advanced, that it meets WP:JOURNALIST. One thing to add for notability - the NYT won George Polk Awards this year, one of them in "Foreign Reporting", its coverage of the award explicitly mentions the "Screams without Words" article. Anair13 (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a that link it doesn't, unless you mean there's a link to it somewhere on that page. The Polk people [2] don't seem to mention it directly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely is mentioned in the NYT corporate page, it's under the first instance of Israel with a hyperlink. The Polk page doesn't mention any specific articles, instead it says "for unsurpassed coverage of the war between Israel and Hamas. Times reporters used firsthand accounts to demonstrate how brutal and well planned the Hamas attack was and how vulnerable and ill prepared Israel had been to defend itself despite access to a 40-page Hamas battle plan."[3] Philipnelson99 (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not a single event biography. Already existed on Hebrew wiki for past activities, and now exceptionally notable for the notorious NYT piece. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Strong pass of WP:JOURNALIST, generally quite notable. JZ (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anat Schwartz's journalistic contributions, as presently documented, do not meet the notability standards required under Wikipedia's guidelines for journalists. Specifically, WP:JOURNALIST and related notability guidelines suggest that a journalist must have significant recognition in their field, originated a substantial concept, technique, or significant body of work, or received substantial critical attention. Publishing a single article that has received attention is not sufficient to reach this bar. GidiD's arguments above convincingly demonstrate the absence of these criteria in Schwartz's case. Marokwitz (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Varun

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-Notable actor and journalist, failed in wikipedia general notability guideline Also, I noticed that this article has been accused of being a 'paid article' before, and the same argument was made in the last nomination as well. So I think now the editors should be allowed to decide. Thanks you. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, News media, and Bihar. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the deletion discussion about this page is already discussed and closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Varun Wikisfrog (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Geary

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

There does not seem to be sufficient independent, non-routine coverage to pass WP:GNG. Also seems to be a decent amount of unencyclopedic cruft. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, Georgia (U.S. state), New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting batch nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer York

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

Not finding the kind of independent, significant coverage required to pass WP:GNG. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Journalism, Radio, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A scan shows little to no independent, non-incidental coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article about an award-winning journalist and musician, since an adequate WP:BEFORE check does not seem to have been done here, especially since this nom was originally bundled. Satisfies WP:NJOURNALIST #4. Per WP:HEY, I have begun the process of adding significant, reliable and independent sourcing. StonyBrook _babble 09:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I indeed did perform a WP:BEFORE, though I don’t always catch every source. None of the awards confer notability–iffy on whether it meets WP:NJOURNALIST #4. The new sources aren’t bad though. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it sails past GNG now. StonyBrook _babble 06:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that with the improved sources it is better ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pressat

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP, appears no more notable than at the 2013 AFD. The problem is that there's no significant coverage of the company. The only things actually about Pressat all appear to be sourced to the same 2013 announcement that they accept Bitcoin, with no further coverage. The good-looking references from The Guardian, LA Times, and CBS News all cite a survey from the company about coffee drinking with no WP:SIGCOV of the actual company. ~ A412 ^talk! 03:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Companies, and United Kingdom. ~ A412 ^talk! 03:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Marshall (writer)

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

The author does not meet WP:GNG. It is all about his one book. Macbeejack ☎ 17:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, United States of America, and Texas. Macbeejack ☎ 17:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best option would be to Rename and turn it into an article about the events described in all these articles. There doesn't seem to be a wiki article about it already, and surely it would meet notability standards. The information about Max Marshall's involvement could be a section within such an article. Vontheri (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this idea. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to draw up a quick stub on that topic and redirect this article to it? -- asilvering (talk) 00:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article can be improved or moved, but those are not reasons for AfD. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more opinions. Before this article could be renamed (and to what?), it must first have a consensus to Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't look like Marshall is notable, though the book may be and the events described in the book are. Tacyarg (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Paul Ingles (via WP:PROD on 22 January 2024)