Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mina Kimes


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Mina Kimes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

On the surface, the article seems benign. But take a good look at the sources - the majority of the sources are ESPN press releases, with more than a few of Ms. Kimes' articles thrown in. A quick Google search finds very little to justify the subject's notability - her only claim to fame, it appears, is being hired to write an ESPN column. Winning a few obscure awards doesn't earn the subject notability. Plus, the original author is an SPA whose Wikipedia input appears to be writing about a circle of Brooklyn writer friends. As the article stands now, it does not pass WP:BIO. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 00:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 00:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Successful investigative journalist who was the subject of in-depth coverage here, an influential player in the sports-business journalism world. Plus she was the recipient of so many journalism awards that if they were pinned to her chest, she'd topple over (see awards on wikipage). Press release references removed as per WP:RS and article revamped as per WP:HEYMANN.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nominator. The NY Post article is a personnel announcement that borrowed everything from the ESPN press release on her hiring. I question how "influential" she is. I never heard of her or her awards. Capt. Milokan (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But the NY Post article was not a press release; it does not matter where the NY Post got the material as long as they're putting their editorial weight behind it. That, plus the numerous other awards and media attention clearly put her into the WP:GNG camp, since If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.--Further, that you "never heard of her or her awards" is irrelevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC) There is another in-depth source here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, Tom, you're assertion that she is "influential" is wildly incorrect - where is your evidence to back that up? And Milokan is correct, the NY Post article is pretty much a cut-and-paste of the original press release that announced Ms. Kimes was being hired - that is immediately obvious when you compare the two. Any casual research into the so-called awards that Ms. Kimes won will show that these are not very meaningful achievements; some of the award announcements in this article come from the award providers' websites, a WP:RS problem. Also, the blog RiveterMagazine.com that did a Q&A with Ms. Kimes does not meet WP:RS requirements. As I originally stated, the article seems perfectly benign, but once you start picking it apart you realize that Ms. Kimes' sole claim to fame is being hired by ESPN - which falls under WP:BLP1E. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Powerful reporting in major publications, numerous well-referenced awards, in-depth treatment by NY Post and Riveter Magazine (no it is not a "blog" as you assert but a magazine that sells subscriptions) -- all these easily meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Plus,, I trust that you have a good grip what constitutes reliable sources when you created this article on David W. Graves which has this as its only source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Powerful reporting in major publications" is strictly your opinion. "Numerous well-referenced awards"- really, where is the news coverage of all of these so-called awards? "In-depth treatment by NY Post and Riveter Magazine" - no, the Post pretty much copied the ESPN press release and the Riveter interview was a blog posting. As for your hunting through my Wikipedia work in an effort make me look silly, all I can say is that your childish desire to belittle anyone who disagrees with you is noted. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not attacking you as a person, I am simply questioning your understanding of Wikipedia's rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * By scavenging through my back edits and pulling up a stub that I created that was merely designed to plug a void in Wikipedia's coverage of the leadership history of Church of the Nazarene? Really? Let's try to focus on the merits of the article and not go digging for dirt in an attempt to belittle this site's contributors. And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per Tomwsulcer. I have never heard of her or her awards either -- so what? BabelStone (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to User:Tomwsulcer] for his persuasive execution of WP:HEYMANN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;  Yash! (Y) 15:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per awards and basic GNG —Мандичка YO 😜 16:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per awards and basic GNG; couldn't have said it better. --GRuban (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per documented awards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Has anyone actually taken a good look at these awards? None of them are significant enough to warrant their own articles on Wikipedia - one editor here tried to erase the redlinks tied to them when I highlighted the obscurity of the prizes here. As for the awards, two are given out by local press groups - one in Atlantic City, the other in New York - and the Henry Luce Award appears to be an internal honor among employees of Time Warner publications. In the other awards, Ms. Kimes was among several dozen receiving honors; these award-churning groups seem to give trophies to everyone that shows up. None of her work to date has received standalone honors like the Pulitzer Prize. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course I looked at the awards before voicing an opinion, the awards confer notability, as does that fact that her job moves are covered as news. The it is true that the article has hype stuffed in and could use some intelligent deflation, but please do try to assume good faith.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Closing admin please consider tactics such as the nominator deliberately redlinking content without any intention of writing articles about the redlinked content, to try to make the subject appear less notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The closing admin should also please consider that winning an award given by the Press Club of Atlantic City and being one of several dozen people to pick up a prize from an obscure journalism organization is, on its own nature, less than notable. Calling attention to the obvious is hardly a sin. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Tom and Adoil desperately need to buy each other a beer or something. We're all on the same side here, that of making good articles. --GRuban (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Tomwsulcer's persuasive argument that, despite likely being a press release, the NY Post choosing to publish it gives it their editorial weight, and the press release being picked up by multiple outlets lends weight to the claim to WP:GNG as well. Noting here only for the record that this thread is a reopened WP:NAC and thus should be closed by an administrator. (There's a template for this but I can't find it) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2015 (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.