Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Arenson


 * 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 --Stephen 01:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Karen Arenson

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Non-notable journalist, coverage related only to one event, and so ruled out per WP:BLP1E. That other event already covered in the appropriate article. Relata refero (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What other article? I'm not seeing it. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There should be a link to Joseph Massad in there, who was the central figure in that internal investigation. Criticism of a particular NY Times article was a very minor little aspect of a relatively non-encylopaedic controversy. Relata refero (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, there wasn't. I've added a link and done some other clean up. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * keep a notable reporter and a notable scandal. If anything, this is material that cannot be reasonably included in the Massad article and should therefore be kept separately. I'm getting a bit tired of the use of BLP1E to argue for very general deletions when BLP1E specifically talks about things like "unimportant criminals" not reporters for the New York Times(which lets not forget is the newspaper of record in the United States) who have been the subject of controversy. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rot. If you think the scandal is notable, start an article on it. The so-called references here mention the Times article only in passing, and in neither case talk about the individual reporter in detail - as well they shouldn't, because the error in question reflects on the editorial team as much if not more. (In fact the Sun specifically says "between the two institutions".)
 * And BLP1E says "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election.." What part of "such as" gives you trouble? Relata refero (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, the examples given are much less notability. "relatively unimportant crime" is something like a random thief. That's much less notable than an NYT reporter. And Areson has name has been in the neews in other contexts as well other than just this controversy. See this for example. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? This random reporter is much more notable than that guy in Australia? Please. In any case, this is a straightforward application of policy as written. If you have a problem with the policy, there are other places to argue that.
 * And if your best example of another story is "random journalist who happened to be quoted as one of thousands who happen to have donated money to political campaigns", it doesn't help much. Relata refero (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that article isn't probably the most persuasive evidence for that particularly claim. I'll spend more time later looking for additional sources of that form. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And for some reason I've been quite snappy in this whole discussion.... sorry about that. Relata refero (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Seemed fine to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, seems to have been the subject of external criticism making her sufficiently notable. As this directly relates to her professional capacity, it is not BLP1E, it is her career. This is far different from being, say, an interview subject or other incidental relation to a single event. --Dhartung | Talk 20:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, firstly, is that interpretation actually in BLP1E? Relata refero (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well no, but it is a highly reasonable interpretation of the logic behind BLP1E. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * sigh*. I don't think so, but will consider it for a bit. Relata refero (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My argument was derived from the closely related WP:COATRACK. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and help - the problem with this page is that it is difficult to find info on her not because its not out there - it almost certianly is - but because she has an ordinary name. I tried, for example googling "karen arenson" "new York Times" award - to see what journalism prizes she has won.  likely she has won some.  Problem is, myriad articles pop up that she has written about somebody or other who ha won an award.


 * I suspect that if we leave this up for a while, somebody who knows more aobut her will know the good key words to google to find articles that discuss her work in a positibe way.


 * In fact, in general, when an article seems biased, the best fix may be to leave it up unitil somebody who admires the subject can type in better info. American Clio (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC) American Clio


 * Keep per JoshuaZ, I too am tired of seeing BLP1E misused in entirely inappropriate situations. RFerreira (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, explain how this is inappropriate. Policy is clearly written to include such cases, why do you want to make an exception? Relata refero (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Her work is regularly cited in books and scholarly articles, so she seems to be very notable as a journalist, quite apart from any controversy. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * She's a journalist! Of course she's occasionally cited. If that's your concern, then she fails WP:PROF as well. Relata refero (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Ho hum, what is the problem here?  No "exceptions" are being made here, the person is just notable as a matter of fact.  Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In heaven's name, how? Where has she been the subject of at least two independent stories in reliable sources about her? Relata refero (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable person, fails WP:RS. She has not been the subject of significant coverage from reliable sources; out of the references provided, the only one that could plausibly be called 'significant coverage' is a blog, which flatly fails WP:RS. The rest are either articles written by her, or brief mentions of her in articles about something else (i.e. the New York Times-Columbia University controversy). It's pretty clear from the sources that it's that controversy which is notable, not Arenson herself. Indeed, this article is basically a coatrack, which uses Arenson as an excuse to talk about the Columbia University controversy. Terraxos (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. The subject is a notable New York Times reporter and I would expect that interested parties would want to turn to Wikipedia to learn more about her.  (jarbarf) (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2008 (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.