Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Koch (publisher)


 * 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, and thanks to Cunard for finding the biographical material from the Wall Street Journal, which I think was decisive here. This lady is marginally notable because there are a couple of reliable sources which have noted her, although compared to most people who have Wikipedia biographies she hasn't accomplished very much yet.— S Marshall T/C 08:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)'''

Elizabeth Koch (publisher)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is one source. Notability is in questions. And the article was created by a single-purpose user, FactorHK, whose only changes have been vandalizing Koch-related articles with POV edits. Therefore I am concerned that leaving up this article creates the possibility of future POV vandalism. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 31.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 22:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Placing vote here just in case it wasn't clear. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment many have stated that she passes WP:GNG because supporting users stated there are reliable sources. To be clear, the vast majority of articles related to Elizabeth Koch are related to different Elizabeth Kochs than this one (there is an elder and an unrelated musician). Of sources related to this Elizabeth, there are two, one of which is not reliable. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as simply none of this suggests any better independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  23:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I found after a short time searching, several references from RS to support GNG. Also, a comment Wiki does not have a policy to delete articles just because we're afraid they may be vandalized. If that's a concern, ask an admin to lock the page to prevent such attacks. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment that still doesn't address notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How does "several references from RS to support GNG" not address notability? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and this habit of seeking to delete Koch family related articles because they might vandalized is not policy-based. A Google news search without the parenthetical "(publisher)" reveals enough cover to meet GNG, once again. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability is. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Many of those are not about this Elizabeth Koch. Leaving the ones that are, there are a handful of articles. Wall Street Journal, fine, and then Salon, which is not a reliable source. Many of these sources, too, are about the elder Elizabeth Koch. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Salon is a good source to show notability. There is nothing wrong with it. I am aware that many hits may be the elder Elizabeth, but there are still plenty for the younger, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Quick comment: Firstly, most of those are for a different younger Elizabeth Koch. Secondly, Salon does not count as a reliable source. Especially about politics. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You haven't said how Salon doesn't count for notability. Please explain why you think it should be excluded. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, its an entertainment site. The article it most recently published is titled "The Big Oral Sex Fallacy". And then their political publications are so far beyond a simple political bias (like how most newspapers have a bias but keep it reasonable), with articles titled along the lines of "Paul Ryan is an absolute joke", "Uh-Oh where does all the white rage go when Trump loses?" and "Mississippi vs. Everyone: State’s pushing obscene law that’s not only anti-LGBT, it could also force women to wear makeup". Its along the same lines as Buzzfeed for reliability. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Those aren't good reasons to reject it as RS. Salon has an editorial policy which is on par with other journalistic sites. It may have a liberal slant (which they do not hide), but again, political leanings don't rule out RS. I've never read anywhere that Salon is unfactual. If there is slant, it can be balanced with other sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence that she is notable as a publisher. People need to pass notabilty guidelines, and she does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Relist in 2 weeks This article is not yet developed enough to determine notability. Rather than legally vandalize it by deleting it, relist it so the authors can add more info, if available. On the other hand, if nothing much is added, it can go to the dustbin. Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no need to relist. It isn't the current state of the article that's an issue. The question -- the only valid question -- is whether or not she has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as best as we can determine searching by Google or other means. And regardless of whether those references currently appear in the article or not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep As one is a published in which published novels, they should stand.KingOfKingsTheAssassin (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC) *Keep Koch is a published author and a significant publisher of fiction in New York. It seems that she has written for magazines and papers including the Los Angeles Review of Books, One Story, FENCE, Glimmer Train, Guernica, the Columbia Journalism Review and the New York Observer. She has also published at least twenty books, including 'Margaret the First' by Danielle Dutton and 'Springtime: A Ghost Story' by Michelle de Kretser'. Why does this 'DaltonCastle' user keep nominating anything related to the Koch family for deletion? In requesting deletion, the user 'DaltonCastle' makes a number of assertions about perceived future vandalism (?) that it seems there is no evidence for.--Plainswin (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. No legitimate argument for deletion. If sources are insufficient to support a biography, the only appropriate outcome would be redirection to Black Balloon Publishing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: most sources related to Elizabeth Koch are for different Elizabeth Kochs. There is an elder and an unrelated musician. There are very few sources on the publisher, and even fewer (possibly only one) from reliable sources. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: I find the same problem as many other editors are finding. Sources are not for this Elizabeth Koch, and the ones that are and discuss her comprehensively are pretty much just the two good ones already in the article.  Others are simply discussion of Black Balloon or Catapult.  I see no problem with a redirect to one of those if the closing admin feels it appropriate. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 00:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - As others have noted above, the Elizabeth Koch we are referencing lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. RS, outside of the two already included, only mention her in passing. Simply being a publisher and writer does not seem inherently notable. Meatsgains (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject passes Notability. The Wall Street Journal article (link) provides significant coverage of her. Here is an excerpt: "Elizabeth R. Koch is the literary member of the Koch family. She has an MFA in creative writing from Syracuse University, where she studied with author George Saunders, has published several short stories (some under a pen name), and is working on a novel. This month she is launching an independent publishing company called Catapult. Ms. Koch, who comes from one of the nation’s wealthiest families, personally invested the seed money for Catapult, which has an annual budget in the high six figures and aims eventually to publish 12 books a year. She is the daughter of Charles Koch, the billionaire industrialist who, with his brother David, co-founded a web of conservative interest groups. In contrast to her father and uncle, Ms. Koch, 39, describes herself as apolitical. “We’re very close but we’re all different,” she said of her family. ... Ms. Koch grew up in Kansas, and wrote stories from the time she was young. She studied English literature at Princeton University, then held a series of jobs, editing books, working at magazines and doing a brief stint in journalism. She was an editor at Opium Magazine and co-founder of Literary Death Match, a raucous reading series in which authors compete for the best performance. “I was doing so many other things because I didn’t have the courage to write,” she said. “It wasn’t until I got into Syracuse that I felt, okay, now I think I have permission. That’s part of what we want to do at Catapult—give people permission. Don’t quit… We’re here, we’re with you, we support you.”" Cunard (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2016 (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.