Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna Maska


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  18:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Johanna Maska

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm unconvinced WP:BIO is met. The best coverage is in the LA Times but since she was being hired by them, that is not independent, similarly, this post by her on Medium. Politico reported that she left the LA Times after a few months, but the coverage is relatively minor and more of the article discusses her ex-boss. Unless there is better coverage that I've missed, I don't think she is currently notable. SmartSE (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * keep political operative whose job moves get major media coverage. My news search here .E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I explained in the rationale why I don't think at least some of that coverage is insufficient to meet WP:BIO. Can you please show which of those sources you think push it the other way? SmartSE (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * keep - per WP:GNG. Per sources.BabbaQ (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Which sources? SmartSE (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources Here: is Chicago Tribune coverage, which I think is not paywalled, albeit the Trib. Corp. owns the LATimes. Here: is Editor & Publisher, , behind a Proquest paywall.  NYTimes here: .   40  hits on proquest archive. all to this Maska, Johanna, but overwhelmingly about about her move form the White House to job  as an executive at the LATimes; and about the subsequent firing of her boss and of her in a management shakeup.  They do discuss her next job as a busineess exec.  I'll back off here and let other editors have a look at sources. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but that doesn't change anything for me: The Chicago Tribune and NYT links contain extremely brief mentions that she was hired and then sacked - far from what we require to meet WP:BIO. I can't access proquest so can't assess these - can you quote any articles that actually discuss her in any length? The number of hits is irrelevant. SmartSE (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * keep A slew of similarly credentialed former White House aides — particularly men — from both parites are not subject to this kind of debate on here. Her work is notable and she seems to have dealt directly with the press throughout her career. Whether she is currently in as high profile a position doesn't seem relevant — she was a White House aide and then an executive. Seems perfectly in keeping with Wikipedia's standards. OneryHenry1982 (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC) — OneryHenry1982 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. routine coverage only.  DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete In contrast with the most recent keep above, I don't see that we have similarly-credentialed former political aides here. As others have mentioned, the actual sources available fall short of WP:GNG and WP:BIO.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - coverage is simply routine. And WP:OSE isn't a valid rationale. We should probably take a look at those other articles.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:10, 5 December 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.