Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abby Martin


 * 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   redirect to RT (TV network). The nominator's position that there the subject does not meet WP:GNG has not been rebutted, nor have sufficient independent RS been added to call the claim into question. I'll leave a redirect behind to the TV network, however, as that way people can at least find the show's name Qwyrxian (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Abby Martin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The A7 speedy deletion tag was removed with the claim that the rt.com source is a reliable source and therefore A7 does not apply. In actuality the rt.com site is the network's own site, meaning that the material on that webpage was placed there by her employer. This does not make her notable. Citation #8 and 9 are YouTube videos; the video at citation #11 does not mention her by name, and citation #10 is not about her at all. The stuff in the "Trivia" section is for the most part self-sourced to her own organisation's website MediaRoots.org. I think the article as it presently stands does not establish that the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and have opened this AFD to get some opinions from people who are more experienced in this area. Thanks. Dianna (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC) --- 'the video at citation #11 does not mention her by name,'
 * My research so far is putting this as a very borderline case. She's been discussed by middle east historian Juan Cole on his blog here.  She was also involved in a kerfuffle with Senator Rand Paul in which she either "asked him tough questions" or "harassed him" depending on whom you believe, which led to his attempting to get her fired from Russia Today.  This event was widely reported in the blogosphere back in July, but I've had a very difficult time sorting out if there are any reliable sources reporting on it. —Torchiest talkedits 20:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article should be deleted as not noteworthy enough per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Kierzek (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The title is: 'WeAreChange confronts Rand Paul about how he tried to get Abby Martin of RT America and Mediaroots.org fired and stripped of her press credentials for asking him tough questions in the Capitol building.'

It features her confronting Paul and being interviewed about it.

I could offer a full-length version of the interview if it'd help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UKXpzdFQ_I

'citation #10 is not about her at all.' It's (obviously) there to support the claim of Mitt Romney being an interventionist; which helps to explain the story.

Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
 * Comment: Our notability guideline for people calls for a person to have been the subject of multiple published reliable independent secondary sources. The sources must also be independent of the subject. Here's a link to the guideline: Notability (people). If the most we can say about Martin is that Rand Paul tried to get her fired, she may only be only notable for that one event. There's more material on this at WP:1E. I am posting these links for Beingsshepherd's benefit since they are a new editor, but also to highlight that the subject of the article is not the source of commentary in multiple independent reliable sources, merely passing mentions, no in-depth coverage of her or her career. Thus she fails the notability criterion. -- Dianna (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think I can satisfy that: Infowars Nightly News: Thursday (6-7-12) – Abby Martin – planet.infowars.com/uncategorized/infowars-nightly-news-thursday-6-7-12-abby-martin infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used  @ 1:02:54 & RT’s Abby Martin : Israel’s War on Truth By Debbie Menon on 11/23/2012 ~ 'Sabbah Report is a certified ‘Google News’ source for news and Op-Ed' http://sabbah.biz/mt/about/ It continues to mystify me, as to why this RT presenter's page IS acceptable: Marina_Dzhashi
 * Beingsshepherd's reply

Beingsshepherd (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
 * Comment I've tidied the comments above, hope that's OK. I think Beingsshepherd has a point. Alyona Minkovski and the one-line  Marina_Dzhashi both exist, so either being a presenter on Russia Today makes one notable, or all three should be deleted. COI: I helped the page creator clean up this article after its first creation  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  07:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument to use in deletion discussions. If the other articles are no better, they can also be AFD'd. I personally don't think having a job on TV is enough to make one notable; it's not listed at the notability criterion, which calls for repeated in-depth coverage in reliable sources. -- Dianna (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Beingsshepherd's reply

Dianna, this may sound impudent; but I disagree.

Before spending the time writing a Wiki article; I gauged what was seemingly acceptable, by looking at other pages. Perhaps my first 2 attempts failed to honour the letter of Wiki law; but I genuinely believed, both: that there would be no problem with a page dedicated to someone who hosts a half-hour television programme, internationally, several times a day, 5 days a week; and that my transgressions could be deemed beginner's mistakes - easily amended.

Presumably, the other RT presenter's articles passed through the same screening process, and were deemed legitimate?

If that's so; then I feel mislead and have had my time wasted.

Maybe you're all a bit jumpy over Wiki's recent 'Brett Straub' Leveson_Inquiry embarrassment. Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
 * I'm not sure what you're talking about; I don't actually follow the news and don't live in the United States. -- Dianna (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 19:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 19:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 19:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG--Nixie9 (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

 I have done some clean-up on the article and gone over the citations individually to see what we've got. That leaves is with Citation #12 (Sabbah Report); #14 WeAreChange.org (Luke Rudowski's website); #16 - website of a book for which she did artwork. I commented out one citation, which is an interview of Martin on a show called Infowars Nightly News, which confirms she is in the media but does not back up any of the other content in the article. WP:SPIP calls for in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources; in other words, someone (other than the subject of the article and her employer) needs to find her notable enough to have written up detailed coverage of her life and career. There's no such coverage in this case. This means that it's almost impossible to get a neutrally-worded article; there simply isn't any neutral independent coverage on which to draw. Therefore it's still my opinion that the article should be deleted as the subject is not notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, for an article at this time. -- Dianna (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * citation #1, 15 - her own website
 * Citations #2, 3, 11, 13 - her employer's website
 * citations #4, 6, 7, 8, 9 - MediaRoots - Martin's own website
 * citation #5, 10 - Website of organisation on which she serves as board of directors
 * Delete per Dianna's analysis of the given sources. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to RT (TV network). It doesn't look like there's enough for an article, but it's a possible search term, and there is the chance that it could be recreated somewhere down the line if more sources become available. —Torchiest talkedits 19:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.