Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith Newman


 * 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 Snow keep. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Judith Newman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a well written and well referenced article but the subject still doesn't seem very notable to me. It's all rather shallow and indirect. Judith Newman is clearly aware of her own questionable notability as we can see from the NY Times article and I think we should have a discussion on the subject. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Are you kidding me?!? Wikipedia has so many profiles of guys doing this that & the other, but you want to delete a well-known female journalist?!? People use Wikipedia as a resource so if anyone wants to know who "Judith Newman" is, they should be able to find out on Wikipedia. Full Stop. JanLisaHuttner —Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject is a published author of several books (yes, I know that in itself isn't necessarily notable) and has written numerous articles published in national US magazines, including a regular column in the high-circulation Ladies Home Journal. She has been mentioned in other national media for controversy surrounding Rosie O'Donnell. She seems to fit Wiki criteria for notability. This article has numerous external cites. Can you point to a more specific reason you think she doesn't merit notability? Moncrief (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Judith Newman is a writer who approaches her subject matter from a humorous angle, rather than as one might if a member of faculty at Harvard. At this level, by no means irrelevant or without merit, she has sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. Philip Cross (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep While it may not be the most popular argument going to be cited, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity..." The notability and other policies are not meant to be wielded as a weapon on subjective notability or someone's non-interest as a test. We got 24 citations and several multiple non-trivial independent sources that specifically deal with the subject and this Telegraph article alone should conifer and confirm notability. This meets WP:GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I absolutely hate the way this article came to be. With a passion. That being said, based off what I've seen in the article over the past few hours, I can't really deny that the references provided meet WP:GNG. Unfortunately, "scumbag practices" is not a reason for deletion. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 18:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I like how the nominator is the creator of pages like Copyright law of Malaysia, Carolyn M. Heighway and stubs like Caroline Arscott which are far more borderline to those who care nothing of art. In fact Arscott, whose work is niche and valued reads only "Professor Caroline Arscott is the Head of Research at the Courtauld Institute.[1] She is an expert on the art of the Victorian period." Has Wikipedia come so low, perhaps it would be best to re-evaluate the scales some, but it is a big world and since the "Search function" capabilities and page curation has made leaps and bounds since first written, I think cases like this may set a bar for inclusion that keeps out the "My Uncle Joe makes a mean sandwich and plays in a garage band"-type notability. Its really disheartening when famous artists from non-English sources are deleted as "not notable" despite having numerous gold records and other awards. The bias blinds us from the goal, deletion is a last resort, not a means to test the personal assessment of others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete the article's subject admitted she's not notable and her primary justification for inclusion is that other stuff exists. She has also put out a public call with a link back to her article asking people to help her keep it. Published authors are public, and as such, it's simple enough to find sources about them. However, that by no means that all authors are notable. In my view, this author hasn't yet distinguished herself. At any rate, it's clear that she fails wp:author on all points. Rklawton (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree with your assessment that "the article's subject admitted she's not notable." That is simply not in my reading of the NYT article. Can you explain where she says this and provide a quote if possible? Moreover, subjects don't get to decide if they're notable enough or not. Someone very famous and notable could insist modestly he or she isn't notable; that doesn't mean we delete the article about that person. Moncrief (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. This person is obviously notable per Moncrief.  Her numerous writings for well-known publications and her books have been reviewed, and several of these reviews are cited in the article.  In addition, the article discusses occasions on which Newman received press coverage for her views and work.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Regardless of the hoopla around her column, she's still a published author and a significant journalist and is notable enough for a page. Robyn2000 (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Ditto Robyn2000 above, and, frankly, this article is better sourced than about half the celebrity pages that aren't being considered for deletion. Bob98133 (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep the number of book reviews alone, points towards her work, and thus her, being generally notable. That she insights conversation, suggests that at least some communities are interested in her as a notable subject. The quality of the referencing, improves the overall quality of the article, Sadads (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2014 (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.