Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Friedman


 * 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   keep. The Bushranger One ping only 00:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ann Friedman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't think that Friedman yet passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. The sources in the article look ok on first glance, but after going through them I found a number of problems: I couldn't find any other sources on the web that looked suitable. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Atlantic Wire, Columbia Journalism Review and FishbowlLA don't have the significant coverage of Friedman required by the guidelines.
 * PolicyMic has good coverage, but it is crowd-sourced, and so doesn't pass our guidlines on identifying reliable sources.
 * ONA13 looks like a blog, which also doesn't count as a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes.
 * Mashable has previously been found not to be reliable source at threads on the reliable sources noticeboard.
 * The Rumpus interviews look ok with respect to our guidelines, but by themselves I don't think they are enough to satisfy the criterion that subjects have "significant coverage" in reliable sources.


 * Delete or merge (if there's a suitable target). Ah, I hate these decisions. Nom is right, this is a borderline case - a good journalist who writes a lot of lively stuff, but as is the way with journos, not a lot of people write about them. Except here at AfD, of course. I've always felt the WP rules didn't apply too well to writers. However, there really aren't very many good sources about Friedman, and the ones above add up to enough for a mention somewhere but not really enough for an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Influential journalist and former executive editor. COverage is sufficient to establish notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? Of the two statements here, the first is an opinion without evidence, while the second is explicitly contradicted by nom's detailed arguments, none of which have been refuted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG as an award winning and recognized journalist. While I agree with the nominator that the original article was poorly sourced, Ann Friedman is the subject of articles about her, is frequently cited and her editorship of GOOD magazine was much publicized. She is important as a feminist and young female magazine editor. The pool of sources about her is much richer than the article at the time of nomination. Crtew (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fresh sources added. More to add. Crtew (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All of the new sources are about the move from GOOD magazine to Tomorrow, and don't really have much background about Friedman herself. This is all good stuff, and probably enough for an article about Tomorrow magazine, but I'm not convinced that it's enough for a stand-alone biography. If we can find one more really good source that discusses Friedman in a context other than (or as well as) the move to Tomorrow magazine, then I would probably be persuaded to change my mind, however. I would recommend a merge with Tomorrow (magazine), but that page is in need of some serious cleanup. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. as much as people above believe that she meets our notability guideline for people, there simply are not multiple reliable sources that we can build an article from, and those expressing a keep preference are not presenting them.  The most substantial one is Policymic, which is not a reliable source at all.  Not against a merger to a relevant target, but deletion is the correct option. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: More fresh material was added. None of those with a preference for delete are disputing that the GOOD magazine incident received WP:SIGCOV as I noted above. Despite what is said above, the citations are NOT unreliable as they consist of LA Times, New York Magazine, and The Atlantic among other publications which covered the incident. Unlike other well-known journalists who we sometimes have to rely on their work alone, Friedman has been the subject of multiple interviews by secondary sources. Perhaps a previous contributor here did not compare the citations before new ones were added and the current version (more fresh material was just added). Moreover, Friedman fits both the WP:GNG and WP:Author criteria as her work is frequently cited by other journalists and she has won or been nominated for multiple awards. Crtew (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is more to add. Crtew (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There may be. However SIGCOV is a synonym ;-) for GNG, not anything extra, so mentioning both does sound like talking things big; and the GOOD mag stuff does little to confer notability on Friedman, while the list of things she wrote via primary sources does nothing at all in that direction, so do excuse the gentle skepticism. Similarly, interviews are at best extremely weak sources for WP:N, as they're the subjects talking about themselves. The prizes now in the article, and proof that other journos cite her work are however evidence, so these are what need to be demonstrated either here or in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe I was very specific about how I use those policy terms. You may think it's making something bigger than it is, but that doesn't take away from the facts. My use is fact based. Crtew (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Two or three direct quotes showing other journos citing her would clinch the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's three from the last 24 hours:  Gobōnobō  + c 20:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Even more fresh sources added -- and apologies for the delay. Thank you, Gobonobo, for your contributions! Crtew (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Demonstrating notability on articles for journalists/editors is always difficult and sort of a blind spot for Wikipedia, but I'm seeing enough coverage in reliable sources for this to pass WP:GNG. As an editor, Friedman has worked for several well-known internet properties, she was one of "20 women to watch" featured in a 2012 Columbia Journalism Review cover story, offers analysis on NPR and the Rachel Maddow Show, and was specifically singled out in an article about the paucity of women bylines in magazines. Concerns over the reliability of interview sources can and should be addressed at the article or RSN. Gobōnobō  + c 20:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY, based on what I see at the article's history. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 22 October 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.