Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trip Gabriel


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Editors remain divided on the quality of sourcing available. signed,Rosguill talk 05:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Trip Gabriel

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The page as it stands now is basically unsourced. Most of the included refs point to articles BY the subject, which makes them OR, or at best primary sources. The sources not written by the subject are mentions, not sigcov. It's possible the subject is technically notable, but my admittedly simple search failed to turn up anything which can be used to build a page out of.

If someone wants to try and TNT it and start over, go ahead, I was unable to. Meanwhile we have an unsourced page mostly written by three editors with no other edits, one of whom would seem to be related to the subject. That reeks of COI editing. As an aside, while I'm not familiar with the subject, this edit by one of the single purpose accounts seems to indicate that the name of the article is not even the subject's given name. The same user removed other personal (unsourced) information about him. Hydromania (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. No time to look into this now, but as I said when deprodding, there are plenty of hits in Ebsco search for ""Trip Gabriel" journalist". The first hit, from The New Yorker, at least provides reliable indept confirmation that he worked under this name and was the editor of the NYT Sunday Styles section in 2009. (MAN ON THE STREET. By: Collins, Lauren. New Yorker. 3/16/2009, Vol. 85 Issue 5, p50-55). I wish nominators would assess what sources might exist, not just comment on the current state of the article's sourcing. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ETA In addition to hundreds of Proquest hits, some book coverage (2pp),, ,  (2pp). Espresso Addict (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics,  and New York.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  05:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Rationale in Special:Diff/1183767902. This wasn't Proposed deletion of biographies of living people material, but the rationale behind that applies here.  Entirely badly sourced biographies of living persons should not stand as placeholders for decades just in case someone might eventually research the person.  The old "better a redlink than this" applies.  Delete.  Uncle G (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Draft  Send it back to draft space so it can be reworked with the sources as mentioned above. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's completely pointless unless someone is going to work on it. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: I've had another look at it, I think it's fine. Source 3 (the NPR) is one of their extended/rambling interviews where they discuss everything about the subject. Based on the numerous articles written in the NY Times, he'd be notable for simply being a correspondent there, appears to have been a rather prolific Times reporter. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a first-person case account of transient global amnesia the individual had, in a peer-reviewed journal. It provides context around their life, and it's in a journal, so the sourcing is above bar. I think we're ok... Gscholar has pages of articles he's written for the NYTimes, appears to go back at least to 2011. This isn't some random Joe writing an article here and there; even if we stub this, it can be about a long-time NYTimes political correspondent, doing coverage of early 21st Century American politics, in probably what has been the most "interesting" time to cover politics in a generation. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And just for fun, here's a neurologist reviewing the case the individual describes in the other article linked above., it's about the individual in question here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine in what way? Currently properly sourced, satisfying a certain notability guideline, or generally interesting? first-person accounts are not reliable secondary sources. Hydromania (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine to be have me change my vote to !keep. Sources are acceptable, as explained in my long description I suppose. I can't state it otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct again, but the companion article I linked discussed the first, so is about the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Notable for being an important NYT correspondent, as proven in the NPR article, the medical journal speaking about his medical condition and the extensive bibliography in the NYT and other publications. The New Yorker article also notability. Two or three RS, which is usually what we ask for in Afd, hence the article passes notability and can be "!keep" voted. I hope that explains it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment this should be draftified for potential to cleanup and submit. Cray04 (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * keep Sources are reliable.
 * AaronVick (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * My rationale in Special:Diff/1183767902 continues to stand a fortnight later, I see. The article's sources are still corporate autobiography, press releases, and things authored by the article subject.  This is a terrible definition of "It's fine." for a biography.  We have an entire Project:Biographies of living persons policy on how content policy is strict on these articles.  No-one has shown by action that either Hydromania's (If someone wants to try and TNT it and start over, go ahead, I was unable to.) or my concerns can be satisfied.  Zero attempts at even a good re-stub.  So maybe actions speak louder and it is, indeed, impossible despite the counting of phrase matches. Uncle G (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And the NPR piece, the two medical journals discussing the interview and the almost three decade history with the NYT, we're passed just being "fine". Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2023 (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.