Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tucker Reed


 * 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. No consensus to delete at this time. As no direct policies are being broken by the existence of this BLP, there's no immediate need to delete as well (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 11:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Tucker Reed

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This subject fails WP:BASIC requirements, and falls very far short of WP:WRITER. No third party coverage has been offered to demonstrate the significance of this woman's apparent achievements. Note: this is not the same person as the Huffington Post author, who is a male. Findsources will result in false positives. JFHJr (㊟) 21:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  01:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  01:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment — See also the relevant discussion at WP:BLPN or its archives regarding contentious content and sourcing. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I added the relevant blog posts about her self described status as a sexual assault victim. without these references, the material would have to be immediately removed, even if it hurts the articles chance of surviving AFD.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete the author has not received sufficient coverage at this time, neither has her book. notability is not inherited from the mother. I of course hope that her work as an activist does bring her notability, but its not there yet. My "vote" has nothing to do with the merits of her book or her blog posts, only about coverage. I would be happy to be proven wrong, with sourced refs. the blog posts i added to support the BLP issues are not quite notable, though a MS blog is not chopped liver.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment — "Ms. Magazine blog" is not subject to the same standards as "Ms. Magazine", and the blog has the disclaimer that all blog content is the opinion of the writer not the editors. The writer of the Ms. Magazine blog article is a student at the same university as the subject of the article. MisTemPest (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree its not the same as the mag, and im glad you have described exactly how its different, those details i didnt know. I wouldnt be surprised if the ms blog and ms reeds blog get more attention, but they havent yet, which is the whole problem here, and we cant "fix" it by covering it ourselves more than it has been already (if i had a blog i would probably cover it).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Tucker Reed is the co-author of a published work by Scholastic Press, with many sources to prove that. (Amber House, novel, 2012, Scholastic Press) http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/book/amber-house http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-545-43416-4 http://www.arthuralevinebooks.com/book.asp?bookid=215 https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/kelly-moore/amber-house/ http://www.kirkusreviews.com/features/complex-mysteries-kelly-moores-amber-house/

Under WP:BASIC requirements it states: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. -- Tucker Reed is notable for being a published author of a very well-received novel. There are many reliable, secondary sources that are independent of each other and independent of Ms. Reed.

Under WP:WRITER notability with regard to authors is defined as follows: Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals: 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2. The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications. 3. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. 4. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 5. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Tucker Reed has co-created a significant piece of work that has received multiple, independent reviews, (number 4 on the list)(with two additional volumes in the trilogy to be released in the winters of 2013-14 and 2014-15). Tucker Reed's work has won significant critical attention, from Kirkus, Booklist, Publisher's Weekly, and countless reviews elsewhere on the internet (number 5). In addition, Tucker Reed created a blog on date rape that is being widely cited by peers (number 1). Finally, Tucker Reed and her blog are the subject of two major publications (Ms.Magazine, [April 10, 2013] and xoJane [release impending]), and the list continues to grow (number 2).

So, I don't understand why JFHJr thinks Tucker Reed falls "very short" of meeting the standard of a WP:WRITER.

A user named MisTemPest has been relentlessly trying to delete the following from her page: Initially anonymous, Reed identified herself and her alleged attacker in a post on February 23, 2013.[4] This decision—and Reed's subsequent efforts to raise awareness for sexual assault victims at the University of Southern California—was profiled in a Ms. magazine article on April 10, 2013.[5]

The statement has sound sources. It is a true event. And it pertains directly to the pertinent information already listed on her page. It is a huge event in Ms. Reed's life, and to not include it in her wikipedia completely dismisses Reed's passionate attempts at social activism in the area of rape awareness. I don't understand how wikipedia can block information from being written on a page that is factual, unbiased, does not accuse anyone of anything, and is merely mentioning something (and then CITING) what has happened thus far.

An online article from USC's Daily Trojan will be released within the coming weeks, in addition to the xoJane online article, both speaking out about Ms. Reed's alleged sexual assault claims. These sites will also directly mention her blog with the February 23rd post, Reed's formation of the non-profit organization S.C.A.R. (the Student Coalition Against Rape, at USC), and the Ms. Magazine article that initially got the word out for Ms. Reed. Further, Reed is one of the subjects of a documentary film that is being produced by the BBC, by academy-award winning filmmakers (Ms. Reed would be able to provide more information about this project).63.155.173.245 (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Whatever MisTemPest keeps bringing up about the "Ms. Magazine article not being subject to the same standards as Ms. Magazine" -- it is a sound and reliable source to attest to the fact that Ms. Reed did, indeed, have a Ms. Magazine article written about her online, and is not meaning to cite or reference anything else besides just that. 63.155.173.245 (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment — I'll note xojane has published Reed's own writing, so it's not quite a third party source. Has someone unassociated with her written about her? And how do you know about what's upcoming? JFHJr (㊟) 03:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment — "Has someone unassociated with her written about her? And how do you know about what's upcoming?" Answer to first question: yes, Ms. Magazine.  More articles will be out within coming weeks. Answer to second question:  IP address 63.155.173.245 is part of SCAR, the subject's group. This makes her privy to forthcoming source information. Now, a question of my own, JF: what is the status of the deletion attempt lodged by the rapists's supporters? Also, how come we're deleting corroborative sources. I understand they in and of themselves do not constitute credible enough source material to substantiate unsubstantiated claims, but other media outlets are covering the same information slowly but surely. Will the citations be admissible then?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissTempeste (talk • contribs) 11:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The subject co-wrote one book, and the notability of that one published book is questionable-sources appear to be press releases or blogs. Comments made on this page that future sources (college paper and more online opinion blogs) will support subject's self-identified notability are irrelevant, the subject is not notable today. MisTemPest (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't you create this article? JFHJr (㊟) 02:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, he didn't. He created a mocking SN. His IP belongs to the subject's rapist and he is trolling to get the article deleted. Which is a waste of everyone's time because press coverage already does exist to substantiate the subject's entry info regarding her book (covered by Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly, which are NOT press releases or blogs). And why all the hemming and hawing about the Ms. article? If the Ms. article is being dismissed because it represents article author opinion, what article doesn't? A news article? So do we ignore all magazine features? Or is it under increased scrutiny because the subject attends the same school as the writer? Don't a significant number of media features result from a subject's acquaintance with a publication employee? This seems like witch hunting to me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissTempeste (talk • contribs) 11:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not create the article. I did not originally nominate it for deletion. I am not the alleged assailant. It is true I created my signature just a few weeks ago in response to the article. I am not attacking the subject or her followers. Over the past few weeks I have made multiple edits to the article which I firmly believe were justified. My edits were repeatedly reversed so on 23 April I reported the issue at WP:BLPN. I have read all the blogs written by and about Reed which have been used as sources in the article. In her blog she acknowledges authorities have not yet charged anyone. Regardless, she has used social media to post names and pictures. In her blog she acknowledges that she has been sued for the unfounded accusation. I feel my edits and comments have been correct and true. MisTemPest (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * MissTempeste, how do you know where the IP of a registered user leads? Or any of the IPs? Regardless, AfD isn't a place for WP:OUTING someone. JFHJr (㊟) 03:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Having read all of the foregoing and looked into the sourcing, I'm convinced that she fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I struggle to understand how Wikipedia can claim that Tucker Reed, a notable author with many fans for her numerous works, is not notable under WP:AUTHOR (which is the exact same thing as WP:WRITER), when she, in fact, IS NOTABLE. She has many sound citations and references to prove that and to back that up. http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/book/amber-house http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-545-43416-4 http://www.arthuralevinebooks.com/book.asp?bookid=215 https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/kelly-moore/amber-house/ http://www.kirkusreviews.com/features/complex-mysteries-kelly-moores-amber-house/

And I also STRUGGLE to understand how Tucker Reed does not meet the criteria for WP:BK. WP:BK states as follows: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

Again, Tucker Reed has MANY sources (some of which are seen above) that are independent of the book itself, and are not re-prints of anything, and are not from self-interested parties advertising for the book themselves. They are from reliable third parties. http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-545-43416-4 https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/kelly-moore/amber-house/ http://www.kirkusreviews.com/features/complex-mysteries-kelly-moores-amber-house/

In addition, WP:GNG CLEARLY STATES: If a topic has received SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE in RELIABLE SOURCES that are INDEPENDENT OF THE SUBJECT, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

Tucker Reed obviously has reliable sources, independent of herself, writing about her and COVERING her. I do not understand any of these disputes against her, and I am very confused as to why her page is up for deletion. I would GREATLY appreciate someone explaining this, without just posting another link to a Wiki page that talks about stuff that "Tucker Reed does not have".

Thank you. 63.155.173.245 (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Answers to your questions. Every book out of the major houses gets a Publishers Weekly and a Kirkus review.  These are the default reviews, and therefore don't mean anything, even if they are positive.  Have a look at WP:42--coverage must be SIGNIFICANT.  Her publisher's website also doesn't count, because it is WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS and WP:ADVERT.  In other words, it is a self-published primary source that is meant as advertising.  So what are we looking for here on Wikipedia?  Answer this for us:  Where are the secondary-source feature stories about Tucker Reed?  Not BLOGS that anyone can post, but FEATURE STORIES.  Salon?  New York Times?  Washington Post?  They just don't exist for this writer.  She doesn't meet WP:42 or WP:GNG, and so she just isn't notable per Wikipedia's guidelines.  Now, let me try to be a little more helpful here.  Let's say this rape controversy actually goes viral, AND the New York Times does a story ABOUT Tucker Reed--not just mentioning her, but actually ABOUT her.  Now you've got one source.  ONE.  And one won't be enough, so you'd better get a lot more.  I hope this clarifies matters for you.  Thanks! Qworty (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we get an admin to speedy close per WP:SNOW at this point? This has been open for a while, and while there's been a lot of back and forth, there hasn't been a single actual Keep vote.  All of the actual votes are Deletes.  Thank you! Qworty (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't lobby closing admins, thanks. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Qworty's statements about the publishing industry are utter nonsense; their ignorance is apparently vast, and their antipathy toward published writers is deep, inexplicable, and frequently displayed here. It is plainly false to say that "every book out of the major houses" gets a PW review, for example; its reviews are often seen as selecting more significant releases, its editorial content independent, and PW coverage is a strong indicator of notability for books and authors. Their analysis here (and in similar discussions should be disregarded; it is nearly as hallucinatory as their insistence that the New York Times has malignantly slanted its coverage to discredit Wikipedia (an end to which Qworty is vigorously if unconsciously working). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per the demonstrated sufficient RS coverage to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Three sources count towards notability: PW, Kirkus and Ms. Magazine. The later is a blog, true, but it is an official blog of a reliable published magazine, it's more than just some person's self published comments, we assume there is editorial control involved. It contains information about Reed. The PW and Kirkus sources are reliable and independent and have a long history of being used in Wikipedia AfD. I agree that the sourcing is weak, however there is it is per GNG: "multiple reliable independent sources". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - This may be a borderline case, but it's pretty clearly on the inclusion side of the border, if only just. I second Hullaballoo's comments about PW and Kirkus - they most certainly do not review every book published by a major house. The BLP issues that have been raised with some of the page's previous content suggest the need to watch that page, not delete it. polarscribe (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect To The Amber House Trilogy, assuming it is not also deleted. The subject has not received wide-enough individual coverage, in my opinion, to merit inclusion under WP:AUTHOR, her individual work does not meet WP:NBOOKS, and she is not a notable activist. The subject's basic claim to notability is that she was allegedly assaulted, and wrote about it on her blog. That's it. This article is also essentially a soapbox for the author(s) - the idea being (I feel) that an article on Wikipedia will give wider coverage to the allegations made by the subject, which by the way were serious and gross violations of WP:BLP as seen from any angle. I would have no problem !voting differently on this if there was significant, real coverage that didn't include blogs and her own publishers, but I see this as a worrying BLP concern with no redeeming qualities whatsoever that would otherwise prompt me to recommend this be kept and watched until the end of time to prevent the alleged assault perpetrator from being named. I have no opinion on whether the allegations are true or not, and I don't have a problem with anyone seeking justice any way they can, but Wikipedia is not a battleground, and we don't need this type of thing. Maybe later. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Given an author and their works, both of which are mildly notable, it's better to keep the article on the author, who may write more. Kirkus in recent years has become nonselective, but Publishers Weekly is a selective review source and in my opinion goes very far to establishing notability . The first book is in about 400 libraries, and I think that's sufficient.  DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relist all of Tucker Reed, The Amber House Trilogy, and Kelly Moore to give time for consensus to evolve. Consider merging Tucker Reed with either the book or her mother.  It appears that three related articles are being considered for deletion separately.  Can they be combined into one AfD?  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The nomination of Kelly Moore is a spill-over from this, and I have recommended Keep, because Deadly Medicine is notable even if the trilogy is not.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Amber House Trilogy. A lot of the coverage cited here is actually coverage of the book, not the author.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC).
 * Weak Keep - Multiple sources count: PW, Kirkus, the KPFK radio source, and Ms. Magazine. The later is an official blog of a reliable published magazine and contains information about Reed. The PW and Kirkus sources are reliable and independent and have a long history of being used in Wikipedia AfD. Sourcing is reliable per GNG: "multiple reliable independent sources". -- User:MissTempeste 21:18, 30 April 2013 (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.