Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Jeong


 * 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 no consensus. Look at the votes: there is NO WAY this is ever going to close as 'delete, and we are better off spending our energy elsewhere--just as closing this will be one less time sink for administrators, this AfD and its talk page apparently being a magnet for BLP violators. So I'll be diplomatic and say "No consensus", rather than the likely keep which I think most seasoned editors see here, judging by the comments. If you want to nominate this again, that's fine--but patience is a virtue. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It's unclear to me how this stub BLP existed before a few days ago since this is how it looked. If you follow the news, then you know why this article has received attention in the past few days. Since then, every agenda-pushing person has come to the talkpage to push their own point of view there. The article was fully locked and since then, interminable discussions have ensued on the talk page, with seeming nothing getting done. This person, according to WP:BLP1E should not have an article, especially since in this particular case, the 1E part is carefully left out of the article. At best, Wikipedia looks like it implies that this is notable enough to deserve an article but completely ignores the main point why anybody has heard of this person. There are already articles where a LP has said far less that this person and Wikipedia implies those people are nutjobs, while here, it pretends this person is an upstanding citizen. Since some people think the article should be frozen for two weeks, it seems like nuking/drafting it, then coming back in two weeks will at least not give the impression that Wikipedia sides with the side that thinks "nothing happened and everything should be swept under the rug". Nergaal (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 4.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 22:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep She passes WP:GNG clearly. Your bias against her is not a reason to delete her article. You can't delete any article you don't like. JC7V -constructive zone  22:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's Wikipedia's bias against/for people with certain opinions. This joke of a stub that does not pass BLP1E, together with the drama on the talkpage blatantly enforces that bias. Nergaal (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * She gets enough secondary coverage to meet WP:GNG. She is mentioned by many different outlets and she has a hook to her. Article length is no reason to delete as many articles that meet WP:GNG are way shorter than this article. JC7V -constructive zone  22:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is bad and you should feel bad. A clearly retaliatory AFD with specious reasoning. A member of the editorial board of the paper of record of the United States with a long history of previous journalism should not have an article? If you are not serious, you should be topic banned for trolling, if you are, you should be banned per WP:COMPETENCE. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You just undermined yourself. Almost none of the members of the NYT editorial board have Wiki pages - despite almost all of them being far more prominent and experienced journalists than Sarah Jeong. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Gamaliel ( talk ) 15:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Speedy keep, even. She clearly meets notability requirements, and talk page drama is not a reason to delete an article. This AFD feels pretty disingenuous, to be honest. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How does she "clearly meet notability requirements"? The only thing notable about her is the tweets. Should we have a BLP for everyone whose controversial tweets make the news? (that's, like, dozens of people every day). ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Deletion review/Log/2018 August 6

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - See the article Talk page, where many editors have make the case for deletion. There is no longstanding coverage of this individual in reliable, mainstream, secondary sources. Clear case of recentism. Wikipedia is not a news site. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete under WP:BLP1E. A review of the contribution history for the Sarah Jeong article shows almost 7 months of inactivity before August 2. The latest revision before Jeong's recent Twitter incident was on January 9, and cites passing mentions and non-independent sources as references. All of the recent news coverage concerns the Twitter incident instead of Jeong herself. (Note that Jeong is affiliated with The Verge (Vox Media), The New York Times, and Vice, so coverage from these sources after her employment are not considered independent.) —  Newslinger  talk   14:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources from the January 9 revision, before Twitter incident, don't meet WP:GNG (which requires at least 2 reliable independent sources that provide significant coverage of Jeong):
 * Forbes: Not significant coverage. A directory listing mentioning Jeong's Forbes 30 Under 30 listing. Unfortunately, since there are 600 people on the list each year, this isn't a strong enough claim to notability.
 * Vox Media: Not independent. Parent company of Jeong's employer.
 * Wired: Not significant. A tweet from Jeong is used as an example, but the article doesn't cover Jeong herself.
 * The Toast: Not reliable. Satirical site (see The Toast). Not independent or significant. Interview with Jeong that only discusses her book.
 * Above the Law: Not significant. A link to one of Jeong's tweets.
 * The Guardian: Not significant or independent. Listing of Jeong's articles.
 * YaleNews: Not independent. Announcement for Jeong's speaking at the university.
 * The New York Times: Not independent. Written by Jeong.
 * Parker Higgins: Not independent. Promotional post for Jeong's newsletter.
 * TinyLetter: Not independent. Jeong's newsletter.
 * Ars Technica: Not significant. Quotes article written by Jeong, but no coverage on Jeong herself.
 * Harvard: Not independent or significant. Listing for Jeong's event.
 * The Toast: Duplicate. See #4.
 * The Mary Sue: Not reliable. Blog post. Not significant. Covers The Internet of Garbage, not Jeong herself.
 * Forbes: Not significant coverage. Not an indicator of notability. See #1.
 * It's incredibly difficult to find additional sources among the deluge of news coverage for the recent Twitter incident, but the sources from before are insufficient. I stand by my delete !vote until this Twitter incident is notable enough to have an article, or until Jeong achieves notability by some other means. —  Newslinger  talk   15:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Writing off The Mary Sue as a "blog post" seems a misunderstanding of the concerns about blogs. It's not a self-published source. The Mary Sue is an online publication that gets some reasonable degree of attention, and has an editorial board. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. I've reread the page and amended the evaluation. —  Newslinger  talk   16:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at your restatement, it still seems to miss the truth. The Mary Sue review goes well beyond just talking about the content of the book; it repeatedly is discussed as part of a larger picture of Jeong's efforts, citing her statements in an interview, and her engagement with an outside campaign. It discusses the book in the context of discussing Jeong and her views as a whole. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reread the page one more time, and don't think this counts as significant coverage. There is one sentence mentioning and linking to a petition that Jeong signed, and it's mentioned to give context to a quotation from the book. —  Newslinger  talk   16:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, writing off The Toast as a satiric site misses the mark. Did it include satire? Sure... as does The New Yorker, as does every paper that ever ran Erma Bombeck, Dave Barry, or "Doonesbury". But that is not all that it was. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reread and amended. Thanks. —  Newslinger  talk   16:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Jeong may not be "independent" enough for her own statements to be taken as flat fact in anything that would aggrandize, but I see no way in which The Toast is not independent, and their decision to interview Jeong should not be considered an indication of her import. Do we write off CBS News on the basis of not being "independent" of anyone they interview? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Interviews, a publication's decision to interview a particular person can be taken as evidence that the person is noteworthy, even if the subject's statements about themselves are primary sources. (Did you mean "should not be" or "should be"?) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "no way in which"..."should not be". I fly the double-negative like a professional writifier, authing like only a real auther can! --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, but only in this case. Please see Interviews. The vast majority of the article is Jeong's responses, and those portions of the article (75%) are a primary source. Take away the responses, and there is no significant coverage from independent sources, which is required by WP:GNG. The interview is about her book, not herself. (Additionally, WP:GNG requires multiple sources to establish Jeong's notability, not just one.) Amended. —  Newslinger  talk   17:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that the Harvard source provides a short bio, which should qualify as significant, unless you're setting standards very high. In any case, I don't think these shortcomings justify deletion. I'm sure sourcing could've been improved, although current events will make it much more difficult to find pre-controversy sources. As I said in my vote, this seems like a case of WP:Overzealous_deletion. Xcalibur (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a listing for her event, so the source wouldn't be independent, either. Amended. This isn't the first controversial WP:BLP1E discussion, though this is certainly one of the more heated ones. Please see Articles for deletion/Alyssa Carson. —  Newslinger  talk   17:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:IP, we're allowed to use non-independent sources, as long as we clearly indicate the connection. Of course independent sources are needed, but I still say this is excessively critical. Xcalibur (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course you can use those sources in the article. However, WP:GNG is quite strict in requiring multiple sources that are independent (among other requirements) to establish notability in an AfD discussion. —  Newslinger  talk   17:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There may be shortcomings in the several sources provided, but I insist that deletion is not an ideal solution, per WP:Overzealous deletion. An even more important consideration is the possibility that, given the timing of this AfD, it is intended as partisan obstruction, which would be WP:Tendentious editing and WP:GAME. I think that concern outweighs your criticism of sources, especially since sourcing can be improved. Xcalibur (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Guidelines like WP:GNG are designed to prevent partisan obstruction, because they apply equally to all article subjects regardless of their political positions or affiliations. If you produce at least 2 sources showing that Jeong meets WP:GNG, then Jeong qualifies for an article. —  Newslinger  talk   18:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, current events will make it considerably more difficult to search for sources not related to the controversy. I also think your standards for significant coverage are too exacting. Xcalibur (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See |Talk:Sarah_Jeong this page view analysis for context. —  Newslinger  talk   16:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, when you scale it big enough, the earlier dates look like zero. |Talk:Sarah_Jeong But they weren't. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm showing that Jeong's notability comes from only one event, as described in WP:BIO1E. I'm also showing the spike in talk page traffic after The Daily Caller reported on this Wikipedia article itself, to give other editors context on why this discussion is so heated. —  Newslinger  talk   16:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I'm showing that you're wrong, and that while there has certainly been a spike in the wake of The Daily Caller, the page was regularly visited before that; more visited than many other articles that have survived AFD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pageview stats aren't used by themselves to establish or counter an article subject's notability. I'm highlighting the change before and after August 2 (<100 vs 40,000-50,000), and offering context to other editors, not making an argument solely from the pageviews. For my actual argument, please defer to the notability of the cited sources above. —  Newslinger  talk   16:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Jeong was a recognized author well before this most recent dust-up, so BLP1E is irrelevant. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, she wasn't. You can't even buy her ebook. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Internet_of_Garbage ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The availability of the book now is not pertinent to how it was received then. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And it wasn't reviewed then either! ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Untrue. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Prove it. Mainstream, reliable, notable sources remember. Not whatever random website pops up when you Google the title. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: ZinedineZidane98 has been blocked for one month due to persistent disruptive editing. The article on The Internet of Garbage has been expanded with academic references since its AfD nomination. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note for uninvolved parties. This is an extremely active page (1500 talk page edits in 4 days) that is currently in the news and related to the gamergate controversy. Outside sources with significant followings are are directing people to the article/talk page.Citing (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient sources and hardly a low-profile individual, so WP:BLP1E does not apply. Kleuske (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep A lead-writer for the NYT? Passes WP:NJOURNALIST: The person is regarded as an important figure, clearly, or she wouldn't have been hired. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 15:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Speedy keep, in fact. Why would anybody want to delete this WP:NOTABLE article? That would be just plain ridiculous. Castncoot (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keepity Keep Keep - the coverage of her works and the Forbes Top 30 Under 30 would've kept this page around had it been nominated a month ago. The current attention certainly does not remove notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This appears to be a case of WP:Overzealous deletion. WP:GNG is satisfied here. There are adequate WP:RS for the old article, and more RS covering the recent incident, this is enough to satisfy WP:BLP. The BLP1E restriction doesn't apply, because the original article is already acceptable, and the twitter controversy is ongoing -- this may be only the beginning of an entire arc of events, it is too soon to judge. Furthermore, the individual and the controversy are closely related, it would be easiest to document the controversy on the existing article. If we choose not to document it, the existing article can stay, there is no need to delete the whole thing (talk page drama is not a reason to delete, that can be moderated in and of itself). Finally, I have serious concerns about the motivations of this request for deletion -- I notice that the article was allowed to stand until the recent controversy, after which a request for deletion was put in almost immediately after. This gives the appearance of a partisan maneuver designed to obstruct coverage of the recent controversy -- if so, this would be WP:Tendentious editing. Controversies often elicit strong reactions, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, which is yet another reason to Keep. Xcalibur (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's where you and many others are mistaken. The original article was a prime candidate for AfD... no one bothered because no one knew about it. The article received no traffic, no edits, because the subject was not mentioned in any prominent sources. She is only notable because of the Twitter controversy - which means, she is not notable at all (unless of course we were to include every person involved in a twitter debacle that reaches the news.... which would necessitate dozens of new articles every day). ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Forbes 30 under 30, Wired, The Guardian, Yale.edu, Harvard.edu, The New York Times, and more, all before the controversy. The earlier sources may not be perfect, but they should be enough for WP:GNG. The controversy itself has received much greater coverage in RS than the average "twitter debacle". Again, I must cite WP:Overzealous deletion, particularly the points on Personal Taste, Obscurity, Lack of Familiarity, and "When in Doubt, Don't Delete". A relative lack of article activity is not a reason to delete, and that problem at least has been solved. You also haven't addressed the possibility that this is WP:Tendentious editing and an example of WP:GAME, which is even more reason to Keep if true. Xcalibur (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep A Google News search prior to 2018 shows plenty of articles that are more than just name dropping about her. It could have been expanded more but we can't force editors to do that, there was enough to justify keeping it. These most recent incident probably only helps to expand her past history more even if none of the tweets or other statements related to the controversy are even brought up. --M asem (t) 15:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, really? Then surely you could link some of these articles about her.... (from mainstream RS remember, not blogs or fringe websites) ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST, but satisfies WP:BLP1E.  For example, the "30 under 30" mention from Forbes is a fairly trivial mention.  Any stories from before 2018 as  notes above are related to the 1E in question; it's simply that they've received renewed attention in recent days (WP:NOTNEWS also comes into play here).  Any notability Jeong has is simply due to the controversy she caused with some public statements.  That's not enough to sustain an article.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I see many pre-2018 sources discussing her as a tech writer, and discussing her in context of "The Internet of Garbage". Yes, there are a few sources with questionable independence (anything from Vox for example). Also, in bringing up BLP1E, we have to recognize she was the target of some previous harassment by Sanders supports in 2016,, that with this additional case, 1E doesn't apply anymore. --M asem  (t) 16:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - what's funny is that, had anyone found it before, the article would have gone straight into AfD because of WP:NOTPLUG. The "sources" were college posts and a book that no one reviewed.  Now that it is WP:BLP1E due to the NYT hiring someone that NY Mag posits "Is the newest member of the New York Times editorial board, Sarah Jeong, a racist?", the actual event is the hiring of such a person to the Editorial Board of what has heretofore been known as "the newspaper of record" of the United States.  And you see, this is the event.  This is the issue.  Not a minor WP:BLP1E individual, little known before.  Of course, now there are sources worldwide from where you can gather age, academic career, etc., but that's precisely what WP:BLP1E was designed to prevent!  So delete the bio already and let's have an article about the controversy. XavierItzm (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E, or move to Sarah Jeong controversy and focus on the actual event that led to her being covered in the press. Subject fails WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:NAUTHOR; only the commotion caused by the revelation of her old tweets is notable. Of course, if we followed the Trump standard, the appropriate article name would be Racial views of Sarah Jeong, so that our beloved encyclopedia would finally have TWO people with an article dedicated to their "racial views". Not saying that I would support that either… Goose, meet gander. — JFG talk 16:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep the coverage is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Arguing using WP:BLP1E does not make sense as the guideline is primarily about someone associated with an event but would otherwise likely remain a low-profile individual, and there is no indication this would be the case here. The event in any case is about her, it is her involvement that is notable. Hzh (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Her role at the Times alone makes her notable. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep She's but now notable.Filmman3000 (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Or, as alternative, move to Sarah Jeong controversy as editor JFG suggests. Scaleshombre (talk)


 * Keep. Plenty of coverage per WP:GNG, and the BLP1E arguments above are unconvincing. This seems like a spite AfD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Serious Nuke Delete: Not notable. There are two related instances of sensationalised fame. Who is this lady? A journalist among 32,000 in the US and multiple hundreds of thousands in the world. However, concerning this subject we have to battle over whitewashing sourced content to make it look better when the "claim to fame" is the tweets. Without the tweets what is she notable for? What national journalistics award does she claim? If there are claims it is as a "senior staff writer" then that is premature as too soon and I can argue that "just that alone" is not really notable. Because there is some sourcing out there does not mean Wikipedia "MUST" have an article on it. Especially of a non-notable journalist some hope will be someone. Maybe any news is good news because Wikipedia is being painted as supporting this: ACTIVIST WIKIPEDIA EDITORS FORBID ANY MENTION OF SARAH JEONG’S RACIST TWEETS IN HER PAGE. Some are there (now maybe) but watered down.  Otr500 (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is hardly the first time that what is or is not included in a Wikipedia article has been reported upon. Whether or not to include the tweets in the article is absolutely a conversation we should be having, but what The Daily Caller thinks about it is irrelevant. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you care about what The Daily Caller's headlines are, I wonder what they would be if we delete this page.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep plenty of coverage, this nom just serves to prove the things that she described in her book - some people in our society just want to purge all mentions of female heroines from the Internet. Openlydialectic (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ??? How does her notability or lack thereof have anything to do with her gender??? And which source called her a "female heroine"??? — JFG talk 17:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't wanna say it out loud because I don't want to offend anyone, but do you really think everyone in the world is compeltely impartial to ones gender? As for the second question, I wasn't referring to any source. I call her that. And many other people too. Openlydialectic (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Openlydialectic. However this user as a right of opinion, and I feel if JFG wants to open that discussion, JFG should go to that talk page and start a discussion. My comment was asked to be redacted for posting the opposite. I feel this is unfair because I didn't post anything hyperbolic like the person above us. JFG does have a decent question and you should be able to use a source or explain your personal logic NOT pointing out what others do. JFG you should go to the user page and start a conversation with, if not asked the comment to be redacted.Filmman3000 (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redacted for what? Are you delusional? Openlydialectic (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per Masem -- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG although the tweet situation is controversial but has had notable coverage her other work as an author/writer, and appointment to the NYT editorial board are independent qualifications for notability. Phil (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep known for more than this one event:journalism and her book; per Masem Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, being known for something isn't the same thing as meeting GNG. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * She obviously meets GNG including the coverage of the twitter controversy and BLP1E doesn't apply because "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event."; they don't, there are sources covering her well before (even if they may not by themselves meet GNG) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. This AfD seems clearly biased and perhaps politically motivated. Proserpine (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Some editors above complain about the massive attention the article has gotten, edit warring, etc. Unfortunately, the article has itself become a flash point in the news for alleged censorship of Wikipedia, as some editors are working to censor embarrassing material off the page, such as directly quoting the tweets. As painful as it may be, keeping all such reliably sourced, notable material is healthier in the long run. Don't delete or censor this article in a way that gives an appearance of favoring the political left. WP really should be apolitical, though it's pretty obvious that individual editors are not. Wookian (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Xcalibur (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep because this article seems to be discrete. Abequinn14 (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * DELETE. Just some recent "news" stories about her, mostly on "social media". Not relevant in the long term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.68.55 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG, and I wouldn't mind deleting all of the single-purpose accounts that have been showing up in order to treat Wikipedia as though it were Twitter. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, this person has heavy media coverage from major and reliable sources and is more than notable. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2018 (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.