Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzannah B. Troy


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Suzannah B. Troy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Lacks notability per WP:BLP and WP:BIO. Also falls under WP:BLP1E. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 14:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability - she lacks it. Fails WP:BLP1E. If we look at the 21 references, most are to her youtube videos. The remainder all cover the suspension of said videos. Ironholds (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, youtube videos and one-sentence mentions in the New York Daily News aren't enough. Peter Karlsen (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 17:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Page has been augmented with information, quotes, and citations to meet notability guidelines.--Maslowsneeds (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wiki guidelines state that, The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth. The augmented information is sufficient to demonstrate that this individual meets the notability guidelines ; please also see the Discussion tab adjoining the article. --Maslowsneeds (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Made further supplemental amendments to demonstrate that many independent sources of sufficient depth have been found. --Maslowsneeds (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Entered still yet further supplemental amendments, which irrefutably demonstrate that many independent sources of sufficient depth have been found as evidence of the notability of this individual (not counting the act of political censorship), including, but not limited to, the remarkable publishing achievement of having had nine letters to the editor printed in the editorial pages of The New York Times, the newspaper of record, as well as citations that document that some of this person's artwork has been archived by cultural and educational institutions. --Maslowsneeds (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * I see 45 refs, where one delete !voter says there were 21, so, just to be sure we;re getting this right, would someone take another look? Courcelles 17:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - looking through the 45 references, most are by the subject of the article, not about her. Those that are about her are either only passing mentions or not from reliable sources . I could find no actual significant coverage by independent reliable sources.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When you say most, you are making a generalisation. When you say only passing mentions or not reliable sources, which citations are you disputing as being factually inaccurate ? --Maslowsneeds (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I object to the deletion of this article, and I ask for advice for how to further document the notability of a social media journalist, who would naturally originate a lot of sources. I want to stress that this individual has been selected and approved by the editorial page editor for publication for a total of nine times in the editorial pages of The New York Times, the national newspaper of record -- the act of which is a notable achievement, in and of itself. When adding in the totality of this individual's other achievements, including overcoming an act of political censorship, her political activism, her use of art in her political activism, and her civic activism, this individual is notable. The fact that this individual has been published by several, if not all, of the major newspapers, proves that she has earned the recognition and respect of editors, another notable achievement. Books by an author are written "by" an author, can Wikipedia apply a hybrid of an academic standard and creative professional standard to this individual ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maslowsneeds (talk • contribs) 12:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - sending opinion letters to the NYT counts as a primary source, not an independent one. The only actual coverage by an independent reliable source is the blurb in the New York Daily News about regaining her YouTube access which falls under WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Comment - my gratitude for the opportunity to further contribute to this article, to make it an even better article ; over the next few days, I will be adding new citations to strengthen secondary sources, renewing request that wiki consider applying a hybrid of academic and creative professional guidelines to this social media journalist, political activist, and artist, that would take into account the volume of writings that have been authored by the subject. Please note that there are secondary sources in the Media Reaction section that cite other media besides The New York Daily News ; for example citations 38-41. See also citations 9, 13. --Maslowsneeds (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article somehow needs a more neutral tone, but she seems to meet the standards of notability based on the news coverage of her as a commentator. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - subject fails notability guidelines. The bulk of the sources are self-generated material. Getting several letters to the editor published does not constitute independent coverage in reliable sources. Coverage of her as a commentator comes in the form of "Suzannah B. Troy, who posts minute-long videos on YouTube, said..." which doesn't constitute significant coverage. Many of the "sources" are reposts of her videos with a "check this out" sentence or two and are posted to blogs which solicit contributions from the public. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Struck !vote of blocked sockpuppet. User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? has been indef-blocked as abusive sockpuppet of puppetmaster User:Otto4711.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: From this article I get the impression that Suzannah Troy is just another blogger and YouTuber, venting her opinions. I don't see (in the article I mean) what claim she has to be called any kind of journalist. As an activist, this article doesn't tell me anything about her having achieved any significant results, nor does it say why she can still claim to be a journalist while being an activist. As an artist it's nice that she played a "central role" in something &mdash; would be nicer if that role was described in some way. As a citizen journalist/blogger, so what if she had letters published? That just means she writes often enough to get picked often (unless the NYT cited a special reason, in which case it is missing from the article). She observed mainstream media didn't pick up certain stories? Okay – was there a reason they didn't? What did her interview with Stern consist of that makes it noteworthy? Did anybody else consider The Villager's activities controversial? What particular expertise did she bring to her interview with NY1 about the water main (or was it just citizen opinion)? Were her works republished for journalistic content, or for some other reason? Did YouTube acknowledge political reasons for suspending her account, or was there some other reason? This page has many holes that need fixing and I'm not sure they're worth fixing... -- BenTels (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - This is actually a pretty close call, in one of the footnote sources the NY Observer calls her "one of Michael Bloomberg’s most prolific, and eccentric, critics" and indicates that YouTube is her primary vehicle for activism. Now admittedly, putting up a bunch of YouTube videos isn't by itself notable — but it should be noted that this particular activity is one of her primary "claims to fame," such as they are. Similarly, multiple published letters to the editor of the New York Times are cited as evidence of notability in the article. Of course, they aren't. But then again, nine published letters?!?! That's symptomatic that this may well be a public figure, the object of independent coverage as the subject of that coverage. The vast multitude of links in the footnotes obscure the fact that there's really not much meat here in terms of external coverage, and that's the bottom line. But if biographical stories surface on this subject in the next few days, I wouldn't be surprised. —Carrite Sept. 23, 2010.
 * Delete, major problems with source reliability, especially on a WP:BLP page. For example, another Wikipedia article is cited. Many of the sources fail WP:NOTE, specifically, not significant coverage, not coverage focusing on the subject of the article in particular, and/or not coverage from sources independent of the subject, or failing reliable standards. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - This person is notable for more than just one act or event (the act of censorship) ; she wasn't reported about in newspapers just because her YouTube account was suspended, but she was also reported about in newspapers for her activism. She is also notable for the publishing achievement of having nine letters printed in the editorial pages of the NYTimes, which were subject to the newspaper's full editorial control, and she is further notable for having been one of the major critics of Mayor Bloomberg. The multitude of links in the footnotes are further indication that the individual has created a platform that reaches beyond just her YouTube account or her blogs ; her writings and political analysis have a further reach than that of just another blogger. Wiki pages are subject to guidelines ; look at the guidelines that are being applied to this article by various contributors ; that I cite another wiki page should not be used to discredit this article, rather, it should be indication enough that wiki articles are subject to the application of severe standards ; with all due respect, how can it be that a reference to the wiki article about Criticisms of Google be the weakest link ? In totality, the fact-cited links show this person leads a notable public life. The use of primary sources (the citations to her YouTube videos) are used only to document facts that Troy posted her first YouTube on a particular date, or to document that Troy has created YouTube videos that were made in protest to the extending of term limits. Newspapers have reported that Troy opposed extensions of term limits, but the citations to her YouTube videos are to document, in a representative way, that Troy has specific examples of YouTubes that relate to the facts being reported in this article. Presently, Troy's YouTube account has 525 videos, but only 9 YouTubes are cited in this article. I'm not fluffing the links, because there are another 516 links I could be stuffing, but my approach is to use some videos as examples only, with economy, and with care. Even those citations that are her YouTube videos that were reposted by other sites, well, those repostings were done by such sites with full editorial control.  Consider how the totality of her work and news coverage show that, in summation, media coverage about Troy goes beyond any one single act or event. She is notable. --Maslowsneeds (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Because this article is about a very politically-involved social media journalist, who has created controversial art and YouTube videos, I ask that the votes for delete be analysed in the context of possible political opposition. The vote to delete that was cast by a sockpuppet account casts aspersions on the motives of the delete votes. If the discussion about keeping this article attracts misconduct, then how are wiki editors able to decide on the true value of this article, when the delete votes are called into question ? --Maslowsneeds (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy The high number of letters published in the NYT is not easily overlooked as they are not 'purely' self-published. These are weak to justify notability for a BLP but the NYT does not publish any letter sent to them by persistent extremists. Considering the above complaints with regard to political opposition I would prefer to be seen to be fair and so recommend userfication rather than simple deletion in order to allow for further sources to be collated in a draft article and possible re-review and discussion at a later date. Fæ (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Added a link to a news article published in Stern magazine, that documents international coverage of the convergence of art and politics by this individual. --Maslowsneeds (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Pages on user spaces are candidates for, and vulnerable to, speedy deletion, a process that was already tried on this article. I am afraid that whatever motivated the puppet accounts to influence the deletion of this article will serve as the same motivation for them to attack again once this article is moved to a user space. All of the sources in this article are verifiable. Can I make a request that a rough consensus be reached on keeping the article ? If userfication remains the sole alternative, then minor improvements can be made with the assistance of another wiki editor such that the article will naturally be acceptable. Is it because the article has been thus far been written by me (one person) that you question its worthiness ? Wiki guidelines state that if, at the very least, reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should have an article about it. But more than that, there are at least 3 verifiable reasons why this person is notable. If someone can help me, I would appreciate it. --Maslowsneeds (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2010 (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.