Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberley Strassel


 * 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. North America1000 15:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Kimberley Strassel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'd fully expect there to be serious sources about someone who has written books, been a columnist for the WSJ for years and is currently on their editorial board. But I'm not seeing any usable secondary sources other than an article in the Oregonian by what looks like a free-lance writer who mainly writes about food (and the article reads like a "local girl does well" thing) and a response to one of her columns (which may count as a review per WP:AUTHOR?)

Anyone have something else? There has to be more. But if not, this should be deleted (or redirected to the WSJ maybe?). Hobit (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * moved from top of this to the right place. Hobit (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Why in the world would you consider deleting this entry? Kimberly Strassel is one of the finest active journalists in the US.  The entry ought to be expanded.  If something in it is inaccurate, by all means, correct or delete that.  But, reading the entry, the only reason I can imagine it would be targeted for deletion is that she's conservative.  One of the few remaining organizations I'd expect to resist such cancel culture nonsense is Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiteykitey (talk • contribs) 23:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't find sources that meet WP:GNG. That is our standard for having an article.  I too find it unlikely she doesn't meet our standards.  I just was trying to learn more about her and was shocked by how little there is in any Reliable sources that I could find.  I probably should have brought it to the talk page first, but AfD seemed like the right way to see if anyone else knew anything. Hobit (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the pillar of Wikipedia is verrifability, and with no GNG meeting sources that is not met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm the one that nominated this, but I don't think it's reasonable to claim that WP:V isn't met. Did you look at the sources? Hobit (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D My Son  06:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.    </li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li>Book reviews for Leaving Women Behind: Modern Families, Outdated Laws, which Kimberley Strassel coauthored with Celeste Colgan and John Goodman<ol> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol></li> <li>Book reviews for The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech, which Kimberley Strassel authored:<ol> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol></li> </ol>

<ol> <li> The article notes: "Ms. Strassel has been an editorial writer since January 2002 and was elevated to the editorial board in November. Her signed op-ed pieces indicate that her thinking is in line with the free market philosophy of The Journal's editorial page. She has written extensively about the multibillion-dollar asbestos litigation. And she has questioned the validity of cases brought by Eliot Spitzer, a Democrat, who is the New York State attorney general and is running for governor. She is also co-author of 'Leaving Women Behind: Modern Families, Outdated Laws,' which says outmoded tax and labor laws penalize families in which both spouses are working. Ms. Strassel, who grew up in Oregon, graduated from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University in 1994. She began as a news assistant at The Central European Economic Review, a Dow Jones publication, based in Brussels, and later moved to London where she worked as a reporter covering technology for The Wall Street Journal's European edition."</li> <li> The article notes: "Kimberley Strassel's journey to Princeton University was something of a leap for the Buxton native, valedictorian from Banks High School class of 1990, and demolition derby driver. As it turns out, life on the race track laid the foundation for what was to come – a now 20-year career at The Wall Street Journal with positions in Brussels, London, New York, and most recently, Washington, D.C., where she serves on the Journal's editorial board and writes the weekly column Potomac Watch."</li> <li> The article notes: "Wednesday night at the Kennedy Center, Wall Street Journal editorial board member and Potomac Watch columnist Kimberley A. Strassel received one of four 2014 Bradley Prizes – with a stipend of $250,000 – at the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation’s eleventh annual awards ceremony. WaPo columnist George Will served as the evening’s master of ceremonies."</li> <li> The article notes: "Kimberley Strassel ’94 became a household name on Feb. 13, 2016, when she appeared with CBS anchors John Dickerson and Major Garrett to host the CBS Republican Debate in Greenville, S.C.Strassel explained that when the camera turned to her so she could ask the first question, she realized the gravity of what she was doing. ... She has appeared on “Meet the Press,” “Face the Nation,” and “Fox News Sunday” to give her insight on domestic politics, and currently, the 2016 Presidential campaigns. ... Strassel grew up in rural Buxton, Ore., which was the center of the burgeoning logging industry at the time. Her father was an auto mechanic, and she explained that she and her family would often drag race on the rural roads. ... Strassel graduated from Banks High School in 1990 and then attended the University, where she majored in Public Policy and International Affairs at the Wilson School, and obtained a Certificate in Russian Studies."</li> <li> The article notes: "Born July 24, 1972; daughter of Mike and Annie Strassel; married Michael Rose (a journalist); children: three. Education: Graduate of Princeton University. Politics: Conservative. Addresses: Home: Washington, DC. Agent: Jay Mandel, William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, 1325 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019. ... Kimberley Strassel is a member of the Wall Street Journal's editorial board and the author of the newspaper's 'Potomac Watch' column. In her books she has written on topics that include women in the workplace and what she sees as the shutting down of opponents by liberals in government. ... With The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech, Strassel puts forth an argument that liberals are quashing speech by conservatives. She details intense scrutiny of conservative-leaning organizations by the Internal Revenue Service during Barack Obama's presidency; many such groups that sought tax-exempt status were unable to obtain it, according to Strassel. Also, she writes, in the name of transparency, liberal activists and government officials have forced conservative groups to reveal the names of their donors, resulting in harassment of those people and overturning an American tradition of being able to support causes anonymously. Campaign finance laws, she says, have been abused to restrict conservative voices."</li> <li> The article notes: "Moderator Kimberley Strassel, a Wall Street Journal columnist, will be on hand to help the candidates and viewers make sense of what is starting to look like a very different GOP field. ... Strassel is an interesting choice for the job. Hailing from Princeton University, she has been a senior editorial writer and member of the editorial board for the Wall Street Journal since 2005. She has won multiple awards for her work throughout the years. The Republican National Committee's choice to make her a moderator is an interesting one, however, considering her characteristically critical stance on candidate Cruz."</li> <li> The article notes: "In addition to Face the Nation host John Dickerson and White House correspondent Major Garrett, tonight’s CBS debate will feature questions from Kimberley Strassel, a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board. While not an obsession of Strassel’s, she’s long expressed doubts: in 2007, Strassel said on CNBC that “there isn’t a consensus yet that [climate change] is actually caused by man or necessarily will be a huge problem,” before adding “it’s real cold out there today.” (It was January.) In 2009, she deployed scare quotes to claim that a set of leaked emails between climatologists had “blown the lid off the ‘science’ of manmade global warming.”"</li> <li>Book reviews for Leaving Women Behind: Modern Families, Outdated Laws, which Kimberley Strassel coauthored with Celeste Colgan and John Goodman<ol> <li> The book review notes: "Everyone who cares about public policy toward women should read Leaving Women Behind by Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal with Celeste Colgan and John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, (www.leavingwomenbehind.com). It is an eye-opening summary of the dramatic transformation of women and the United States economy. ... Leaving Women Behind is not a blueprint for all societies and all times. But it is a startling compendium of the outdated laws, regulations, and norms that handcuff the modern U.S. economy and serves as a reminder of the danger of failing to re-think and re-examine economic strategies as societies evolve."</li> <li> The book review notes: "Another recent book, Leaving Women Behind, by conservative policy analysts John C. Goodman and Celeste Colgan and Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley A. Strassel, lays out the right-wing appeal for changes benefiting “modern families.” ... Leaving Women Behind eschews the overheated and simplistic rhetoric often coming from the right, but its underlying premise is as ideological and predictable as a Stalinist tract. There is one truth and it is this: Government is bad, taxes are bad, and all things private are good. Fundamentally, all we need to do is to get the government out of the way, cut taxes, throw out a bunch of outdated laws, and privatize everything in sight (the authors' list of public programs to dismantle includes health care, Social Security, and education). In promoting this market fundamentalist agenda, they use a carefully loaded language designed to persuade the uninitiated. Retirees are shunted off into Medicare; defined-contribution pension systems are more “mobile and flexible” than the defined-benefit systems of old; “death” taxes lurk; and getting rid of overtime pay and unneeded perks will free employers to provide higher wages and plenty of comp time when ever you want it."</li> <li> The book review notes: "The authors, who include a former Halliburton executive and a Wall Street Journal editorial page writer, succeed in proving that conservatives can offer compelling solutions to women's issues. They don't, however, succeed in presenting those solutions in a reader-friendly format."</li> <li> The article notes: "According to Leaving Women Behind: Modern Families, Outdated Laws, the regulations that govern private pensions did not contemplate the influx of women into the labor market and therefore are not suited to the way modern women live. 'Because women live longer than men, they are more likely to suffer the defects of our retirement systems,' asserts co-author Kim Strassel. 'Because the laws governing private pensions weren't designed for the modern woman, many have little retirement security. If reforms are not made soon, a growing number of women will be denied their 'golden years.'' ... Moreover, contends Strassel, women are treated unfairly by the health care system. 'Health care is routinely near the top of women's concerns, partially due to the fact that women are more frequent consumers of care. However women's experiences with health care, including their ability to maintain a consistent doctor relationship, is complicated by the way we typically attain health insurance.'"</li> <li> The article notes: "Regardless of your views of the health-care system, Leaving Women Behind: Modem Families, Outdated Laws, coauthored by Kimberly A. Strassel (right), offers an incisive look at how to meet the health-care needs of 21st-century women. Employer-based insurance can't keep pace with working mothers, the most 'dynamic and mobile portion' of the labor market. Too many of us lose our insurance or must switch plans (and often our doctors) as we ramp on and off a career track. The challenge is to find ways to flex our health care alongside our careers."</li> <li> The article notes: "Leaving Women Behind: Modern Families, Outdated Laws makes a convincing case that tax and labor law has been disadvantageous to women—especially married women and married women with children—as compared to men. The authors identify a host of specific areas in which this is true, but some readers may think the accompanying remedies rely too much on government and not enough on the market. ... Despite recognizable obstacles to implementing its various reform plans, Leaving Women Behind takes an optimistic view. Government regulation has made a terrible mess of the labor market, and working women are the main (but certainly not the only) losers. The book presents an informative and appealing, if incomplete, case for a deregulatory agenda."</li> </ol></li> <li>Book reviews for The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech, which Kimberley Strassel authored:<ol> <li> The review notes: "Strassel seesaws confusingly between diverse political intimidation campaigns and specific election spending disputes around the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. She backs up her tales with high-minded election-finance reform proposals. Though often sidetracked by Washington-insider fine points, Strassel draws a timely, convincing, and alarming picture of liberal governance and a Democratic machine that’s eager to bully resistant citizens."</li> <li> The article notes: "In her debut, a Wall Street Journal columnist and editorial board member excoriates the left’s use of campaign finance laws to stifle free speech and free association. ... An eye-opening lesson in the law of unintended consequences: where “a vast new disclosure regime” intended to curb corruption has spawned a corruption all its own."</li> <li> The article notes: "In The Intimidation Game, Kim Strassel tells compelling stories of Americans immersed in unconstitutional stink, assembling a convincing narrative of an effort predominantly by the left to silence its opponents, subverting the freedom of speech in the process. The book is a welcome and accessible account of the IRS scandal of targeting Tea Party groups, the Wisconsin “John Doe” campaign finance inquisition, and other shameful activities. As a free speech attorney who has been involved directly or close at hand in some of the cases Strassel describes, I was nevertheless taken aback at the breadth of the intimidation game, which stems from an all-encompassing term: “disclosure.”"</li> <li> The article notes: "In her 416-page monument to investigative journalism, The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech, Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal dissects in enlightening (and at times, excruciating) detail how this epic drama has played out during the Obama era, especially since the most recent strategic inflection point of January 21, 2010, the case of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission."</li> </ol></li> </ol>

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kimberley Strassel to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * I've got to say that only the first source really strikes me as much of anything. The book reviews are either very short, for co-authored work, or feel like PR (the Federalist Society one in particular is really bad).  But yeah, as the nom I'm moving to "neutral".  If I could have found more than the handful of those I found, I wouldn't have nominated it. Hobit (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard's accurate and detailed analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: It would be nice if there was more critical commentary about Strassel out there, but she is certainly notable.  I guess this is all one needs to know, and it is neutral and objective: "By October 2019, President Trump had tweeted about Strassel or retweeted her commentary more than 20 times, including calling for a Pulitzer Prize for her."--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  18:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: As User:Cunard has demonstrated, Strassel clearly meets WP:GNG. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">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.