Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Vinograd


 * 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 speedy keep. SK1 (non-admin closure) Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 20:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Samantha Vinograd

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet NBIO or NJOURNALIST. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 08:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 08:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 08:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 08:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 08:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that she is notable in that she is the national go-to expert for CNN on National Security issues and writes for numerous national publications. I could list all the publications with citations. I tried to start a discussion somewhere on experts in their field and notability but no one replied. If prominent and numerous news sources solicit your expertise on a regular basis (she appears on CNN quite regularly), I think that is sufficient for notability. It would also have the side benefit of allowing the general public find out about who the expert is and I would expect over time, editors could add her opinions. 17:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ”keep” I think it’s convenient to have a place to look for a bio of a CNN analyst to understand her background. In this case she’s a child of Holocaust survivors. That’s exactly what I did after watching a CNN news clip entitled This is the scariest thing I’ve seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.68.98.137 (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NJOURNALIST #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Being National Security Analyst at CNN meets this criterion. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * So everyone who works for CNN meets NJOURNO 1? Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 15:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO, everyone whose title is "national security analyst" at CNN meets NJOURNO 1, for example Peter Bergen and Juliette Kayyem. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? That just means national security analyst. Not every analyst is an expert in their field. For example, she hasn't ever published a book or an article in a peer reviewed journal. She doesn't have a PhD. She's not a professor. Can you point to her being widely cited by her peers? Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 16:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If CNN news shows that repeatedly hire her are journalistic peers then she is widely cited by peers. There is nothing in NJOURNO1 that requires us to second-guess her peers whether or not she is an expert in her field. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what linking to a google search of her name is supposed to demonstrate. Can you provide examples of her being widely cited by her peers? That would mean examples of (1) her peers (2) citing her work (3) a lot. (CNN is her employer not her peer. Her "peers" in this case would be national security experts.) Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 16:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That was a Google NEWS search, to demonstrate her being cited by her peers aka journalists, at CNN and elsewhere. NJOURNO relates to notability as a journalist, not as a national security expert. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, let's say her peers are other journalists. Has she been widely cited by journalists? (A google news search doesn't demonstrate that.) Which of her works have been widely cited by journalists? Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 16:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Multiple news stories at CNN and elsewhere that quote SV are examples of SV being "widely cited" by journalistic peers. NJOURNO1 requires that the journalist be widely cited, not that one or more of the journalist's "works" must be widely cited. Her Twitter account rather than her CNN work is also often quoted in news stories. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * She's CNN's national security analyst. Her being published or quoted by CNN in no way counts as being "widely cited by her peers." You're confusing "being published" with "being cited". And if you're saying she's widely cited because her tweets are cited, well... LMAO. Ping me if you can up with like three examples of her being cited by her peers. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 18:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, some examples of being cited by peers:
 * Newsweek: article title based on quote from SV, discusses and links to her CNN work
 * The Atlantic: piece (titled from quote of Vinograd, and recounting some of her remarks as an invited speaker at 2018 Atlantic Festival)
 * WaPo Daniel W. Drezner quotes and links to SV's CNN opinion,
 * WaPo quotes Twitter calling her "Obama National Security Council official Samantha Vinograd" in 2019.
 * NYT quotes Twitter
 * Mojo quotes Twitter
 * Related, she seems to get respect from security types such as Michael Morell, Michael G. Vickers and Thomas E. Donilon, based on NYT 2016 story


 * OK, thanks for pulling some examples together, I agree this moves the needle but I'm seeing more WP:NPROF than WP:NJOURN here:
 * Newsweek is, indeed, citing her work, but Newsweek is junk; yellow at WP:RSP.
 * The Atlantic isn't citing her work, it's reporting on a panel, on which she was a panelist, and the panel was put together by The Atlantic (The Atlantic Festival). The report is written by a fellow panelist, and quotes what she said at the panel. Because it's written by a fellow panelist, and published by the same organization that put on the panel, it's not really independent, and I don't think it counts as citing Vinograd's work, as opposed to ... well, reporting what she said at a panel. That said, the fact that she was on the panel, if it doesn't count for NJOURN 1, I think would count towards NPROF 7, as it helps establish her as an expert in the area of national security, because The Atlantic is an RS, so being on an Atlantic-sponsored panel suggests impact outside academia.
 * WaPo/Drezner is a one-sentence mention, "CNN’s Samantha Vinograd notes that by going to the DMZ, Trump has signaled his comfort with the status quo. This puts far less pressure on Kim to make tangible concessions.", but it links to her CNN article, and it's a citation by another expert in a reliable source, so I'd say it counts.
 * No way that NYT or MJ quoting her tweets (among other people's tweets) counts as citing a journalist's work in the NJOURN 1 sense. In the NYT story, she's being quoted as a witness more than as an expert, in a story about receiving fake messages ("Samantha Vinograd, who was on the National Security Council staff on loan from the Treasury Department during the Obama administration, replied to the council’s tweet, recounting her experience with the disinformation.") The MJ story expressly quotes her as a national security expert, so that shows NPROF 7 again, but even though MJ is green at RSP, the entry there says "Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.", and I think that caution should be applied here because MJ is citing her as a former Obama official for an anti-Trump point, so I don't think we should accord it much weight.
 * The last NYT link about her co-signing a letter doesn't count as citing her work as a journalist but as you said, it shows she gets respect from peers in the national security field and thus in my view would count towards NPROF 7 notability.
 * In all, based on these, I'm not convinced about GNG or NJOURN 1, but (1) her work being cited by Drezner in a WaPo op-ed, (2) serving on a The Atlantic expert panel, and (3) being a co-signer of a letter signed by a bunch of natsec experts reported in NYT, I think could establish NPROF notability (which doesn't require GNG). Before I felt we had zero substantiation; now I think we have more than zero (we have 3, to be exact; 3.5 if you add MJ ). With there being no delete !votes and if other editors think this is enough for NPROF 7 (or if there's more out there), I would withdraw the nom. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 20:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, well Time cites her extensively in this story, likewise The Hill, calling her "a top national security official during the Obama administration"], and both those are green at WP:RSP, so I still think she meets NJOURN1-- but I will be happy if you withdraw your nomination based on NPROF 7 instead. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, and also her work at CNN and WaPo has been cited three times in opinion columns by David Leonhardt , alongside León Krauze, Margaret Sullivan (journalist), Kenneth M. Pollack, Andrew Bacevich, Fred Kaplan, and her sometimes-coauthor Michael Morell, all of whom have articles. So that's enough for me. Thanks for finding the sources ! Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 20:26, 27 July 2020 (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.