Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Chisholm (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Now a Merge with BlueOregon can be considered. Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Kari Chisholm
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Notability was shakey when deletion was first considered. Editors involved in that discussion promised to improve the page, but those additions were minor and Chrisholm and BlueOregon are even less newsworthy now than they were in 2013. This reads like a vanity page. NASAvegas (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: I see No consensus right now. Should editors seriously consider the Merge option? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 3.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 00:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete all I find are Blue Oregon articles (where he works) and him talking about the Heisman trophy. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is there an underscore in his name? That seems to screw up the search when you click on the links in the nomination (to search for coverage). Oaktree b (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I've never done one of these before so maybe I messed up the formatting somehow? NASAvegas (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @NASAvegas Fixed. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 04:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I was concerned it might have been an attempt to avoid a previously SALTED article, but that's not the case. No worries! Oaktree b (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The article in the Wall Street Journal is significant coverage. This article in Roll Call is significant. The article in the Register Guard likely is sufficient. A newer blurb, with information about the subject's business interests was published by the City of Portland. ---Enos733 (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Only one of article's cited sources is actually specifically about Chisholm, and that's the Wall Street Journal article detailing his Heisman forecasting. The Roll Call article (not currently cited) is another good one, but that makes two national pieces. The Register-Guard article is about bloggers across the state of Oregon and includes a few quotes from Chisholm. The other cited sources are mostly small, local outlets in which Chisholm is mentioned in passing (e.g. Lake Oswego Review, KPOJ), or websites that Chisholm operates (BlueOregon, StiffArm Trophy). There is no evidence that I'm seeing of sustained coverage in prominent publications. The City of Portland link you provide is clearly a bio submitted by Chisholm. NASAvegas (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would assert that two good national sources + local coverage usually is enough for a GNG pass. - Enos733 (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The local coverage is just mentions in passing, though. There are no local articles (at least that I'm seeing) where Chrisholm is the primary subject of the reporting. In one of the cited Oregonian articles, his name isn't even mentioned once—there's just a brief reference to BlueOregon. The link to the other Oregonian article doesn't work. In fact, links to ~75% of the citations are broken. Let's be honest here: standards for notability were more lax a decade ago, which is why this article exists. As a new submission it would never get through AfC today. NASAvegas (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The generally accepted bar is significant coverage in three independent reliable sources. Im only seeing two here although it does seem odd that no in-depth local coverage has been found, I'd be surprised if it didn't exist... Therefore a borderline WP:NEXIST keep might be in order in that situation. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This Willamette Week article is strong local coverage that focuses on Chisholm's conflict of interest issues. Referenced on the BlueOregon article but not here. NASAvegas (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I see issues with two of these sources. I was under the impression that RollCall is a trade paper for politics and doesn't count towards GNG per WP:ORGIND. The Register Guard article includes quotes from Chisholm, but doesn't appear to actually contain WP:INDEPENDENT, in-depth coverage of him. Remember that he doesn't inherit notability from coverage of BlueOregon per WP:INHERITORG. QuintinK (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Either weak keep or merge into BlueOregon as a less desirable second option. I think this just scraped by in terms of coverage although I do question whether we need a page both for the defunct blog and its publisher. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Could we merge BlueOregon into Kari Chisholm? NASAvegas (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not as a result of this discussion, no. But we could do it separately. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Would BlueOregon likely meet WP:NCORP? I suspect probably not. - Enos733 (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think they probably would, the problem comes in separating coverage of BlueOregon and Chisholm because it seems to have been primarily their project. IMO we should treat it more like Chisholm's blog than Chisholm's employer. Also note that whether they own or are employed by the blog the notability standard for blogs is Notability (web) not NCORP. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've tried to improve this article by trimming down unnecessary content and adding citations to some of the additional sources discussed here (namely the Roll Call and Willamette Week pieces). But this is still a delete for me. The Roll Call piece isn't even 500 words. It's really a stretch to call that significant national coverage. (The WSJ article is only slightly longer at ~700). NASAvegas (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Based on what I'm seeing here, I'm leaning towards delete. It would be helpful for people arguing 'keep' to provide the WP:THREE best sources to establish notability here in the discussion. I agree that the Willamette Week article meets the full source criteria, but I don't see other sources. RollCall is arguably a trade magazine and can't be used towards notability per WP:ORGIND. I also agree that BlueOregon may need to be merged here, if we keep. The WW article suggests they're inextricably linked.
 * QuintinK (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * For me its WW, WSJ, and Roll Call. I don't agree with the argument that Roll Call is a trade mag, I can't find any WP:RS calling it that either. What source are you relying on for the trade magazine designation? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Roll Call is a trade publication for DC political insiders, according to the Washingtonian. The NYT obituary of its founder quotes him as saying Roll Call is "part trade paper." I'm not questioning if it's a reliable source; I'm just saying it can't be used to establish notability per the norms for trade publications. At this point, I see the WW and WSG pieces as meeting the full requirements for sources. That's two good sources for notability, which is marginal. QuintinK (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Three thoughts on that... First is that Chisholm doesn't appear to be a DC insider, they're a provincial (no offense) figure. The second is that the Washingtonian's brush is both a bit broad and not specific, The Hill (newspaper) for example is routinely used for notability purposes and is not broadly accepted as a trade mag. Third "part trade paper" =/= "trade paper" anymore than wikipedia being part gazette makes us a gazette. Is there anyone who explicitly says that Roll Call is a trade mag? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The WW article ("Sins of Omission") is structured as a criticism of Chisholm's dual work as political consultant and political journalist / publisher. If we're saying that article (in a local alt-weekly) is one of the two or three sources that establishes notability, then you'd think more of his Wikipedia article (beyond the one sentence I recently added) would address this perceived controversy. But that would, of course, be excessive, and speaks to the problem of allowing articles like this to exist when sourcing is so thin. NASAvegas (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree the article should include more substantive discussion of that article and be less puffy in general. I also think it would be appropriate to merge BlueOregon into this article. I'm not sure if you're familiar with Willamette Week, but they have the most serious newsroom of any Portland paper. Their work is high-quality and widely read. I'm going to go with a weak keep for this article. It drags its belly over the WP:GNG bar, but it is over it. QuintinK (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm very familiar with the Willamette Week. And to be clear, I *don't* believe that the conflict of interest controversy needs much more discussion here. (Maybe one other sentence at most.) I'm just noting that when you point to a Willamette Week article as being one of the three most important sources for establishing Chrisholm's notability, it logically follows that the substance of that article should be well represented in Chrisholm's Wikipedia article. In practice, though, that feels like coatracking. NASAvegas (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * It appears appropriate that BlueOregon be merged into Kari Chisholm. However, I think that would require a separate discussion following this one, since this AFD is about the Chisholm article I voted to weak keep above. I don't think it would make sense to add this article into an article titled "BlueOregon." QuintinK (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. - Enos733 (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also agree. NASAvegas (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or merge as described above. There is probably enough to cross the WP:GNG hurdle, but merging the content to another article may also be appropriate, given how light this article is.  -- Jayron 32 14:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.