Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abby Martin (2nd nomination)


 * 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). Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Abby Martin
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

May fail Wikipedia's WP:GNG. Perhaps others can discover some less fringy sources to establish her notability...looks like she was nominated before and it was decided to redirect the article. But, it's since been created. Might meet speedy...but I'd rather ya'll decide that :) SarahStierch (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  19:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  19:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  19:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - She's a presenter and host of Breaking the Set on the RT network (tv show), for which she's gotten some press like and, not to mention a pretty successful youtube channel. She's quite Googlable, but you're right that most of the sources seem pretty weak. She's been involved with a number of notable projects with WP pages. Other than RT, most of it is marginal at best, but in combination with the TV work I think they add up to notability. I expect that searches in other languages might turn up even more. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  20:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I closed the previous AfD; I'll just note that, in comparing the current article to the prior deleted one, there is one additional independent source (the pleasontonweekly article), and it has a lot less refspam (links to her own show), so I'd say it just barely passes WP:CSD. With the sources presented above by Rhododendrites, that may be enough to move past WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER; I'll let editors decide that. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - She passes WP:GNG comfortably. In addition to all that's mentioned above, she's gotten coverage from a major publication like Der Spiegel. Zvonko (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - the page has been successfully nominated for deletion in the past and was then redirected to RT (TV network), but later it was created again for some reason. Indeed, the subject does not meet WP:GNG and doesn't have sufficient independent RS. Serioudly, is every American journalist going to have an article on Wikipedia? Shalom11111 (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep - Per Zvonko (above). Not every American journalist has their own international TV show.--Rickbrown9 (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's true, but many journalists who do have their own TV show don't have a Wikiepdia article, and rightly so. Shalom11111 (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I had not heard of Abby Martin, Breaking the Set, or RT America. As far as I can tell, all of them are exceptionally obscure. I found a single reliable source that briefly mentions the show, but it points out that "RT's American audience, like that of other foreign cable stations, is too small to be measured, according to a press official at Nielsen, the company that measures TV ratings in the United States." It gets mentioned by bloggers, in its own promo materials, in Martin's self-promotion, but she and the television show almost seem to not exist to professional news sites. Agyle (talk) 08:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is International. That the audience in America is small or that you haven't heard of it or the station doesn't mean it's not notable. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  14:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Abby Martin has aired interviewing the likes of President Jimmy Carter, Oliver Stone, Jesse Ventura and Larry King. Anyone seeing these shows and checking here for more info, would be disappointed if Wikipedia had no article. Regarding the size of RT news, according to Wikipedia, "In 2013 RT has become the first TV news channel in history to reach 1 billion views on YouTube."--Rickbrown9 (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried finding a reliable news source about her Carter interview, but found only blogs, primary sources and such. It's not a question of what she does, but of finding solid secondary sources about what she does. Please link solid sources with info about her work. Agyle (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding international audience, my assessment of Martin's non-notability is based on Internet searches, which are also international. RT America's notability isn't in question. Agyle (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a legit news story that mentions her that I overlooked, which was linked in a previous version of the wikipedia article: israelnationalnews.com (note that algemeiner 1 and algemeiner 2 are just fancy–looking blogs). I also two found others I overlooked, by googling with other terms: tagesspiegel.de spiegel.de. Agyle (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Protected redirect or Delete - There still doesn't seem to be adequate significant independent coverage to support a standalone article on this living person. Of the 4 sources currently in the article, 3 are not independent of the subject (the subject's home page, and 2 from Media Roots, which is the subject's own website) and the other seems to be a local story about the subject leaving for college.  The article from Der Spiegel noted above is independent, but hardly represents significant coverage of the subject. Probably restoring the redirect from the prior AfD, but protecting it until adequate coverage is available, is preferable to deletion, since the RT site is an appropriate target if a reader is searching for her; on the other hand, the specific target site doesn't even mention her. Rlendog (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of notability. The article is woefully sourced, and the Der Spiegel article mentioned here goes not much beyond passing mentions.  Sandstein   10:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't see anything in the article that raises her above being simply a TV journalist doing an adequate job. Were there some indication of an exceptional or unusual achievement worthy of encyclopaedic mention, then I'd be inclined to keep, but I see no evidence of that. --gilgongo (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep In fact I will vote for why is this a controversy?  I legitimately did not hear of her until someone sent me to an excellent interview she did with Oliver Stone.  I was impressed, which is subjective, but I wanted to know more basic facts: where was she born? what was her career like to this point?  The question I submit to the people who have nominated this for deletion: where else would you want me to go for this information if not Wikipedia??  I have zero-percent special interest in this topic, and if there were no article I would write one, because I am sure there are lots of other people like me who have a need to find out basic information like this, and I want to them to got to Wikipedia first. LaurentianShield (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW just checked WP:GNG. I think it is possible to misread this in cases of biographies, that you want society at large to establish notability, and be able to cite a source for such.  Remember what the preamble to WP:GNG says: "Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics."  Check out WP:IINFO for examples of "indiscriminate."  Abby Martin is already notable, as an objective common sense fact, and hardly compares to things like "lyrics databases".  The issue of sources then becomes: don't find out where she went to college by doing primary research, but get it from reliable secondary sources. LaurentianShield (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * delete Some of the arguments above essentially amount to ILIKEIT. We do not cover all television journalist--we are NOT a DIRECTORY. WE distinguish not on the basis of the ones people here ought to be important but on the basis of which ones already are. None of the keep arguments seem to be addressed to this. BTW, if she or anyone else is notable, we can perfectly well take non-controversial information such as well the person went to school from reliable non-independent sources such as their published CV.  DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the chiming in DGG but I need to defend my case if you think it merely boils down to "I like it".  As I said, I have zero special interest beyond the fact that I saw an interview and wished to know a few basic facts.  Please read WP:IINFO as I suggested and tell me how that applies in this case.  I realize that with popular culture figures, this can be an emotional and confusing topic, but clearly Martin is "notable" -- I myself noted her, and was so glad I could find out all I needed to know on Wikipedia.  In this case, I am an excellent example of a reader with a legitimate need, and was surprised anyone could read her as not notable.  Editors need to use judgment if interpreting WP:GNG and in order to do that it is important to go back to the purpose of WP:GNG, in the way that I quoted above.  I think people are concerned that Wikipedia will be used for private gain, and so use a "strict constructionist" interpretation of WP:GNG, but it would be twice as frustrating to me as a reader to have to search around for basic information than for Wikipedia to take a more common sense interpretation at the risk of accidentally let some personal publicity leak in.  LaurentianShield (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2013 (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.