Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Kosik

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. Kubigula (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Kosik[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial coverage only, and possible violation of BLP. (excessive prominence for potentially negative material). Earlier, positive, versions were deleted for being copyvio from the first reference cited. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is some Kosik-related controversy from the right on a related issue, and from the left on a different issue. Here's her CNN bio which should be a reliable source for providing background. "Kosik earned a Fellow from the Scripps Howard New Media Fellowship from Columbia University in 2001. She also received a 1999 Florida AP Award for Best Spot News and was a 1993 Fellow from the International Radio and Television Society." seems to establish notability. 67.6.132.34 (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only problem with the CNN bio is that since she works for CNN, it's seen as a primary source and you can't really use primary sources as a way to show notability. (WP:PRIMARY) In order to use that as a source at all, you need to have reliable secondary sources to prove everything that's put in the bio. It's in CNN's best interests to make her look as good as possible in her bio and it's fairly common in any field for things to get played up or added to a public bio so that person looks as official as possible. The other big issue is that she seems to pretty much only be known for her Occupy remarks, which would be considered one event WP:BIO1E. Unless that one event is extremely large, akin to Rebecca Black singing Friday, you can't really justify having an article where the only notable thing the person has done is one event that got a medium amount of coverage. I'm researching it and will make my decision later, but just wanted to put this in here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Additional. The big problem I'm finding with some of the sources given is that in many of them Kocik is only briefly mentioned or quoted. In the Star article that was on the wiki entry, she was very very briefly mentioned. The article wasn't really about her, so it can't really even be used as a trivial source. In the Fair.org article she is only quoted briefly, which doesn't really count as a source proving notability. A good example would be an article like this one [1], which is about her and in-depth. However, most of the articles I'm finding are about her Occupy remarks, so you need to find articles about her that are in-depth like this one but don't really focus on the Occupy stuff.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete. I searched, I really did. There's just not anything out there to show that this journalist is notable enough to merit her own article. I was going to say that maybe she might be worth mentioning in the reaction/criticism section of OWS, but I can't even see where she's really gotten enough notice to even warrant that. There's only about a handful of articles (and of those, only about 2 even come close to being considered reliable) that mention her remarks in October, not nearly enough to consider her remarks notable enough to mention anywhere. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. Articles that serve principally as vehicles for derisive/derogatory content regarding minimally significant elements of their subject's careers should be summarily deleted as BLP violations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe I started this article, and if people think it should be deleted, I wouldn't argue against it. When I wrote the article I expected the story might continue to develop, and/or the journalist might get additional coverage for other reasons. If that hasn't happened, and there are no additional existing good sources, as Tokyogirl79 says, I wouldn't argue that the article is warranted as-is. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.