Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Witter


 * 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. The sense of the discussion is that the author has sufficient notability to warrant an article, and that the promotion, while inappropriate, can be addressed by other means. I do think there is consensus that inappropriate promotion has occurred; if it is not addressed a future renomination is likely. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Lisa Witter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promotional article,almost entirely written by obvious COI editors in 2008-2012. I would like to think we would not accept this sort of puffery nowadays. See also the AfD for her book The She Spot  DGG ( talk ) 08:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Kudos to DGG for noticing this as a promotional campaign on Wikipedia. I only wish DGG had placed both articles in the AfD. I am referring to the separate AfD for the article linked above -
 * Articles for deletion/The She Spot (2nd nomination). That AfD is an important component to this AfD. Both articles pertaining to these AfD's were started by the same red-linked account, which appears to me to be single purpose account (see contributions here: ) This first SPA only edited the "She Spot" and the author biography "Lisa Witter".


 * Additionally, when viewing the edit history of the author biography, it can be seen that article was earlier edited by three SPAs; the first SPA has already been mentioned.
 * The other two red-linked SPAs have only edited the author bio --- (June-July 2008),  - and -  (January 2010-August 2011). Also, upon viewing the talk page of the spa Hailey 113 - - User talk:Haley113 -- :
 * it can be seen that this person attempted an article on this book's co-author Lisa Chen (which was deleted), and his or her user page was deleted because the "User page is utilized inappropriately for promotion of book" -
 * see - - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Haley113. So, all of this presents the appearance of a campaign to promote this book some years ago. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge or Keep (updated !vote per additional information) the two articles, doesn't matter to me which way. Combined there looks to be enough to meet GNG. Barely, but enough.   Montanabw (talk)  10:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've been trying to nail down the career of Lisa Witter and have so far come up with some bits and pieces. Apparently she is a journalist, and she has written articles for the Huffington Post, and Newsday (scroll to middle of page) . She has co-founded "Apolitical.com" and in the short bio there it says "Lisa co-founded Assemblyfor, applying behavioural science to policy and social change. Previously she was COO of Fenton, the largest public interest communications firm in the US. She has been a commentator and moderator for outlets including NPR, MSNBC, CBS and the Clinton Global Initiative. She has worked in government for the Seattle City Council. She is a WEF Young Global Leader and sits on the Global Agenda Council on Behaviour". She was also somehow professionally involved with two Nobel Prize winners , although she calls it "spending personal time with...them". Also, see article references for further gleanings. I don't have the time to look at all of them right now. Any comments on this comment as an indication of notability. or not, are welcome. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets general notability guidelines for a person, as one can see by looking at sources retrieved through Google links provided on the top of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Took the time to research this BLP and she is clearly notable, see my comment below dated 22:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC) Keep Convinced by argument. 21:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC) Keep & Merge withdrawn as I try to better understand "promotional aspects" that led to this AfD. Atsme 📞📧 16:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)  - keep per the info posted above by Steve and merge book & bio.  She's an author, and also notable as a "first", the first partner in the 30-year history of Fenton.  There's also an article about her in Glamour, , the University of California-Santa Cruz alumni bio , and she wrote an article for Stanford .  Another article about her here, and there are more, so she's clearly notable. Atsme 📞📧 06:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me try to explain more clearly, the problem is not notability, but promotionalism. I would not challenge the notability of an author of a moderately notable book, even if it were ethe only thing they had done that was notable  The problem is promotionalism . Although most of the discussions here are about notability, not all of them are. It is not the only reason for deletion. It is not even the most urgent reason for deletion. We all know copyvio and BLPvio take priority, but in my view, so does promotionalism./ If we have an article about a author that isnt actually notable, it does very little harm; If we don't have one about a somewhat notable author, ditto. We'll never be complete. But if we do have an article that was inserted for the purpose of advertising, it does real harm. It violates the basic principle of NOT ADVOCACY, which take priority over any guideline on notability. It encourages other potential advertisers. It encourages the people who would like to write advertising. It encourages COI editing. It encourages violation of the TOU, tho this article was written before the current  TOU.  Promotionalism is a reason to delete. If kept, I will try to neutralize it to the extent I can, be removing the cherry-picked quotations, but it would be much bette not be here at all,  because it is advertising .  DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , is there a way for editors to specifically review prior AfDs for similar book - author promotions? In other words, are they somehow categorized? Atsme 📞📧 06:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * not that I can think of. The type this represents is where an author notable for a single books has an article about the books also. Sometimes they are listed in the same AfD, sometimes in two adjacent or linked AfDs, and sometimes separately--they are not necessarily listed at the same time, and the relationship will be mentioned in the discussion, not the AfD title. In general, when there is a book of some notability by an author of a single book, I've usually advocated keeping the article on the author: the  author article has the prospect of growth, since the writer of a successful book often writes further ones. The book article, on the other hand, is rarely capable of expansion. There can however be cases where for some reason the book is much more notable., and of course for books that become actually famous, both the book and the author can be notable, e.g. Margaret Mitchell,  the author of Gone with the wind.-- though such cases are fairly rare.
 * But these arguments have usually hinged on the notability issue. This pair of nomination does not: the question here is promotionalism. Nowadays, when a COI editor tries to write both a book and an author article at the same time, it's just like writing simultaneously an article on a company and its chief executive. The COI stands out, and we are sensitive to it, so it's fairly rare for the pair to even get a far as AfD. These articles were written in 2008, by an editor who has written nothing else. In 2008,we rarely spotted these--I was here at the time, and I probably would not have immediately recognized this as advertising or given it a high priority. In 2008, I was dealing at AfD with questions of clearly notable subjects to which people raised technical objections, and also, of course to clearly non-notable subjects. Promotionalism was recognized as a problem, but not the biggest problem: the emphasis in the discussions were always on whereto draw the line for notability, which was much less clear then than it has become by now for most types of articles. We do make progress: afd results are considerably less erratic.
 * This is I think the first pair of book-author articles where I have nominated for deletion based primarily upon promotionalism, though I have frequently nominated organizations/executive pairs on grounds of promotionalism  primarily. Nor can I remember an exactly similar nomination by anyone else.My focus on promotionalism  is recent; I think I am not uniques--our general concern about it is growing,with more and more rings of promotional  paid editors  being detected--as well and more of the background of editors promoting one particular thing or group of things  only in which they have a conflict of interest. When we detect promotional  editors, they usually complain: but you have articles X, Y, and Z, which are no better than mine.  Sometimes the argument is absurd, because X Y & Z are truly famous, while they are at best not yet notable.  Sometimes the argument is not absurd at all, and X, Y,and Z, all should be deleted. Even a good faith editor can be misled by the predominance of promotional   articles in some fields into copying their style--and this has led to an increasing number of very unfortunate incorrect accusations of COI and paid editing.
 * For all these reasons, we need to not only stop the new promotional articles as they try to enter (which we are learning how to do), but remove the ones that managed to get into WP when we had not yet realized the extent of the danger.
 * Being part of a clearly promotional campaign is a grounds for deletion. It violates WP:NOT, and any possible notability is irrelevant.  It's just as irrelevant as saying  that notability is a defense to copyvio.  DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But this is not a copyright violation. Is not it the case when WP:IAR (one of the "five pillars") should override WP:COI which is only a guideline? I assume that content of the page is valid and sufficiently well sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - yes, it probably should be deleted due to COI, and it's very poorly written, but I'd like to keep as many BLPS of notable females as we can. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, here are our reasons for deletion, and they tell about removing pages that belong to "advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content". I think this is not the case here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * so would I, but the way is to encourage volunteers to write them, and help them select the ones that are most notable . There have been a unfortunate number of deletions from recent editathons in the field, due to selecting those with relatively minor notability. It's the responsibility of those sponsoring such events to help the new users by screen topics--a new user should be directed to something that is reasonably certain to pass. Only after successful experience is it good idea to try testing the limits, by seeing if people are willing to be liberal on the criteria. But all this is not the issue here. I wouldn't oppose rewriting here after the deletion, but it seems from experience that the way to discourage promotional  editors is to remove the promotion, not rescue it.  DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The extent of the promotionalism problem in this article is enormous, and the material not based on reliable secondary sources needs to be drastically cut back. (Maybe I'll feel bold here shortly and do it myself.) Further, I don't think it's anybody's obligation to go back and fill in what will then be a nearly empty entry with neutral, properly sourced material, unless some editor really want to. But all that said. I do not believe COI is sufficient reason to delete an entry if reliable sources could validate notability: I'll note that for instance, WP:AUTOBIO warns if you put up a post about yourself--a clear conflict--and "you do turn out to be notable, you must expect the article to stay." Seems pretty clear that COI does not automatically override notability. And on the notability front, I think this subject meets WP:AUTHOR #3, possibly WP:BASIC as well (I didn't look super closely because I was satisfied with AUTHOR).
 * I'll also note that the AfD on the book was closed as keep, which affirms my sense of community consensus that an entry can be legitimate as notable even with promotionalism concerns. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Here is an article about the subject: The article notes: "If Showtime's 'American Candidate,' premiering at 9 p.m. Sunday, were running its faux presidential campaign by the book, Everett's Lisa Witter wouldn't qualify. Witter, executive vice president of the public relations firm Fenton Communications, meets the majority of the checklist outlined in the Constitution: she's a natural-born citizen and has been a U.S. resident for 14 years. But she also happens to be 31 years old, four years shy of the minimum age requirement. That doesn't matter to the series producers, though. What got Witter on their ballot was her dedication to the highest ideals of our democracy, her history of public service and a fire in her belly. As she and her fellow 'candidates' stumped throughout the country, she did what any savvy politico would -- she talked about this election's top issues and tried her best to win hearts and minds. ... Witter has a fair shot, and experience to boot. Now living in New York City, our candidate spent the 1990s effecting change around Seattle, particularly in her capacity as a legislative assistant to Seattle City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck. Washington state Democrats named her a Rising Star in 1997 for co-founding the Institute for a Democratic Future and EMERGE: Women Leaders for a Democratic Future. Her father is a Vietnam veteran and a diesel mechanic, and her mother works at a paper mill. She sounds like political gold." I don't consider the promotional issues to be significant enough to warrant deletion. Cunard (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete due both to promotionalism (which this article is full of) and to lack of sources. The independent sources, including the Seattle Post-Intelligencer mention her only in passing and do not provide significant coverage of her. The fact that her work has appeared somewhere does not mean that she's notable unless others are talking about where her work has appeared, and I don't see evidence of that. Ca2james (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * For more sources talking about her work (beyond what's already cited here in the AfD or in the entry):
 * Publishers Weekly
 * Advertising Age
 * Reference & Research Book News
 * ForeWord
 * Happy editing-- Innisfree987 (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those sources. Each of them is focused on the book and mentions her only in passing, so can't be used to establish her notability. They could be added to the book article, though. Ca2james (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * They're drawn from the book's entry. It seems rather inconsistent, though, to say the problem is not enough sources with "others talking about where her work has appeared" and then discount four sources because they focus on her work. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about her book but her writings in Huffington Post, AlterNet, etc, which are promoted in the article on her. Sorry for the confusion. Even if I was talking about the book, I'd be looking for sources that aren't reviews to talk about her work. Ca2james (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, I guess I just disagree which what kind of secondary sources on her work "count" (I'm a little perplexed by the idea of wanting sources that aren't reviews but talk about her work--is there a guideline you can point me to that explains this?), but I agree with you that citations to things she wrote herself are primary sources so per WP:NOR I've gone through and removed a bunch--of course please dive in and remove any others you consider flawed. I've also put up two more secondary sources (again, in addition to what's already cited up to this point) tracking her job changes. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right: me wanting secondary sources for her book that aren't reviews that talk about her work makes no sense and is wrong; my apologies for perplexing you. Ca2james (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, thanks for clarifying--glad to know there's not some distinction that I've overlooked entirely! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * comment - Witter appeared as a political strategist on the Fox Business Channel in 2008. She also appeared as a member of an expert panel on the CBS Early Show in 2008 discussing double standards. There's a chapter in the book Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries published by Simon & Schuster that includes a chapter about an interview with her titled "How To Write A Press Release", starting on pg 222. She was honored as one of the Young Global Leaders which is governed by a Board that Jimmy Wales serves on for the World Economic Forum.  She is the Co-Founder and Executive Chairman of Apolitical and there's a lot more available with proper research.  Don't delete this article because too few content creators have taken an interest in it or invested any time in expanding and improving it. This BLP has a lot of potential to become a very interesting DYK/GA candidate with a little effort exerted into research and expansion.  She is clearly notable.  Atsme 📞📧 22:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article may very well need to be completely re-written, maybe just turned into a stub with only a few sentences, but I still believe that Witter is notable. Appearances by her on the likes of the CBS Early Show and discussions of her viewpoints by the likes of Advertising Age and Publishers Weekly aren't nothing. I agree with the important concerns about promotionalism, but AFD discussions are not an article clean up mechanism. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:42, 29 July 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.