Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nomiki Konst


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  08:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomiki Konst

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page should be deleted for the simple reason that she is not notable enough. There are two reliable sources in this article: two Arizona Daily Star articles about her announcement that she would run in the Democratic primary for a 2012 congressional seat as a recent University of Arizona graduate. If two 5-yr old articles is all there is, then she's not notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep There are 7 sources in the article, Aside from her 2012 candidacy, Konst is with The Young Turks, is regularly in the media and is part of the DNC unity commission. Plenty notable. Mo2010 (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * These are the sources in the article: (i) A tweet, (ii) A website called "Zonie.com", (iii) a Youtube video from the crackpots at the Young Turks, (iv) the two Arizona Daily Star articles that I mentioned, (v) a Hill article that you just added (this Hill article mentions Konst once and it's in a list of people), and (vi) a government website listing Konst as one of the primary candidates in the 2012 election. If this individual is notable, you sure as hell can't tell it from the sourcing. The page looks like it was written by Konst to promote herself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "a Youtube video from the crackpots at the Young Turks" I see this is political more than an actual concern about sourcing. You not agreeing with The Young Turks is not a legitimate reason to delete this article. Mo2010 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is why I provided a different reason for deleting this article. I wouldn't call for the deletion of Jimmy Dore's or Cenk Uygur's pages because they are actually notable and have some RS coverage. Konst doesn't and this page is in violation of Wiki policy. Konst being willing to slap together her own Wikipedia page, doesn't mean she gets one. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added additional sourcing including from The Washington Post and Mediaite that cover her and for the record I am the one that originally created this page.Mo2010 (talk) 5:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The following sources have been added to the article: (i) a link to the website of a show she used to host, (ii) a story by the 'National Herald', which I've never heard of before but which describes itself as the "only daily Greek language publication in North America", (iii) a self-published Forbes op-ed, (iv) a brief Mediaite piece that mentions her once, and (v) a WaPo piece that actually covers her at length but only as a way to show how Sanders supporters responded to his loss in the Democratic primary. It's a narrative piece that takes one individual and looks at how he/she reacted to something (similar to stories of how Trump supporter X reacted to Trump action Y). The WaPo piece does not cover her as a notable individual who has accomplished things. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * First the Forbes Op-ed is an interview piece not self published that covers her as an notable individual who has accomplished things. The Mediaite piece is about her and what happened to her at a protest she was covering in New York City. The WoPo piece partly covered her work to negotiate a trues between Bernie supporters and the Clinton campaign. She has more notable sources than Emma Vigeland, John Iadarola, Jacob Soboroff and others who are all similar to her but she is not notable enough for you despite having 12 independent sources. If they are notable than she is notable. Mo2010 (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Those pages should also be deleted. Thanks for pointing them out. I'll take the appropriate action. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I can't. It might skirt a ban that the admins custom-made for me. I therefore encourage others reading this to request the deletion of those pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are banned from deleting those pages you should be banned from deleting this one. Mo2010 (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that she helped write the DNC platform, is on the DNC reform commission, she appears on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and others. When Keith Ellison was accused of being an Anti Semite when running for DNC Chair....who did MSNBC ask to come on? Nomiki Konst. When Vox was reporting on Kamala Harris 2020 prospects, who did they ask for comment? Nomiki. When Time Magizine was reporting on 2020 prospects, who did they ask? Nomiki. When Newsweek was reporting on 2020 prospects who did they ask for comment? Nomiki. I can go on and on if you want, I can go and catalouge every notable act she has done for the last couple of years and believe me, it will blow her current page out of the water
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a politically motivated action, https://twitter.com/bravenak/status/920148228506402817
 * Delete. We do not have 12 independent sources here, as the creator claims. Right off the bat, four sources are not independent of her: #1 is her own primary source profile on the website of her agent; #2 is her own Twitter; #3 is a press release from a company she's worked for; #11 is content distributed by the show she works for. That's four primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, already. Then there are four more sources that cannot assist notability at all for different reasons: Mediaite is not a reliable source at all; the Arizona Secretary of State is a type of WP:ROUTINE source that every candidate in any election could always show regardless of their notability or lack thereof, because there's always an "all of the registered candidates" directory on the website of the relevant elections authority; one just namechecks her existence a single time in an article that isn't about her; and Q&A interviews can be used as supplementary sourcing for stray facts after notability has already been covered off, but cannot be bringers of notability as such because they represent the subject talking about herself. Which leaves us assessing four GNG-eligible sources, not 12: but of those four, two exist solely in the context of her candidacy for an election that she didn't win, one exists solely in the context of her having been a delegate to the presidential primaries, and one exists solely in the context of her being ethnically Greek. But being a non-winning candidate in an election is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia — she has to win the election, not just run in it, to be considered notable as a politician — and showing two sources about her candidacy doesn't make it special, because every candidate in any election could always show two sources about that. Being a primary delegate is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, and being Greek is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself. As for being notable as a broadcaster, no reliable source coverage about that work has been shown at all — broadcasters have to be the subject of coverage in media outlets other than their own employer to qualify for Wikipedia articles, not just to be nominally verifiable in their employer's own self-published content. So, for all of those reasons, nothing here properly demonstrates that she qualifies for an article either as a broadcaster or as a politician. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete candidates for congress are not notable for that, and her other actions do not rise to the level of being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a group of Hillary Clinton supporters on Twitter right now, laughing it up, acting as if "Wikipedia" is deleting this page bcos she isn't "Notable" enough. This is not true, this is not even how it works. I'm not sure who started this move to delete her page, but my guess is that they are also part of this same group.

Currently twitter users @UnseatBernie and @Bravenak are encouraging people to come here and state that all we really care about is sources.....and integrity of wikipedia....and yadah yah.

This is low, please don't fall for this nonsense, these are the same people trying to get her kicked off the DNC Reform Commission, get her kicked off TYT, get her kicked out of Womens Convention, etc, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shandunt (talk • contribs) 07:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate though that may be, we do not keep Wikipedia articles just to help the subject spite their opponents in a political dispute — we keep articles about people who can be properly sourced as passing a specific notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - literally just do a basic google search and you will see that her name is mentioned across most of the mainstream press.....Nobody was advocating to create Nomiki's page out of spite - I was informing you that the exact opposite is happening. NOmiki's page was organically created a while ago without fuss....no one took issue with it UNTIL a bunch of clinton supporters started a campaign to erase her from as many sites as possible, including this one.

So what I am suggesting is to take with a grain of salt, many of the comments here, including mine, and compare Nomiki to her peers which also have pages on wikipedia which no one is contesting at the moment....look at how selective the concern is, is Marissa_Johnson really more notable than Nomiki Konst? Nomiki is a regular invited to give comment or appear on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Time, The Blaze, Huffington Post. She is a reporter for TYT, an activist, a protester, Nomiki helped write the DNC Platform - SHE HELPED WRITE THE DNC PLATFORM, Nomiki is part of the DNC Reform commission, Nomiki is speaking at the womens convention, Nomiki has spoken at dozens of political events, she is regularly asked for comment by outlets like Vox, MIC, and many others. - literally just do a basic google search and you will see that her name is mentioned across most of the mainstream press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shandunt (talk • contribs) 01:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of, well, notability. she has participated in founding a number of minor organizations; she ran for a party nomination to a seat in Congress, which produced a little ROUTINE coverage; and there was a profile of her as a delegate to her party's national convention - all of which fails to support notability.  she's youngish; perhaps it is merely WP:TOOSOON, although lots of people do good work in activist movements and as party activists for a lifetime; even going to every state and national Party convention as a Delegate for decades without every becoming notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BASIC as Konst has not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Tweets and routine coverage related to a failed candidacy does not source a BLP. AusLondonder (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I concur with most of the arguments about lack of independent secondary sources and lack of notability. It is possible that Ms. Konst may become suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia at a later date, but as matters stand now, I do not believe she meets the criteria for inclusion. Charlie GALVIN (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2017 (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.