Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Loomer

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. Probably a "keep" after the rewrite, but certainly no consensus to delete. Sandstein 09:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Loomer

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

Self-publicising article for a person who fails WP:BLP1E. Only has news coverage for a stunt - which in itself was distinctly unnotable. Black Kite (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the creator, will not cast a vote in the AfD process and gladly welcome the WP populous to decide if the national/international media coverage of the subject, from multiple independent reliable sources, meets the standards to establish subject's notability, under WP guidelines. All the best and happy voting! Cllgbksr (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a very clear WP:BLP1E case with no other claims to notability. The event itself seems to be WP:NOTNEWS as it's hard to see how that's a "significant current event" or a "topic of historical significance", on the contrary it will be long forgotten. Valenciano (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has been expanded since being nominated and no longer quite fits WP:BLP1E. This is a Medea Benjamin-type political activist who likes to stage stunts that get some news coverage. she's new at it , so maybe it's just WP:TOOSOON and she'll become the Medea Benjamin of the anti-Islam right. At present, however, there is nothing like WP:SIGCOV of her. Delete for lack of sources adequate to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Person seemingly known solely for rather and unfunny attention-seeking stunts. No in-depth coverage such as profile pieces to demonstrate long-term significance. AusLondonder (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, stills seems to be me to be WP:BLP1E as only the most recent is that noteworthy. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 00:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added another reference, independent RS that goes into some depth on her. May meet WP:SIGCOV [1]. Cllgbksr (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My sense is this might just be a little WP:TOOSOON for an article. She already has an in-depth profile in the New Yorker, per the above comment. I think she'd meet the notability requirements if she gets coverage outside of June 2017. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Loomer has received significant coverage for more than just the most recent Shakespeare in the Park event. For instance, TIME Magazine covered her infiltration into the Clinton campaign (here, here). NBC covered her trying to convince her university to start a pro-ISIS club so it could be caught on camera by James O'Keefe (here). Then there are the other stunts currently listed in the article. Yeah, she's a real class act. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will add those to the article. Thanks Dr. Fleischman for the info. Cllgbksr (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The in-depth profile in the New Yorker magazine this month, plus the non-trivial coverage in Time magazine and NBC Miami (March & August 2015) mean's she has enough WP:RS coverage to meet the WP:GNG. - GretLomborg (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the New Yorker piece was NOT a profile, it did not discuss her background or draw on sources as profiles do, it was a simple morning-after interview about the Julius Caesar staged protest.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification please... WRT discussion of "her background", do you mean her place of birth, academic career, marraige, children? I agree with those who regard the mundane biographical milestones of a life as desirable, but unnecessary for a BLP. It is what individuals do, not where they are born, that makes them notable. Geo Swan (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is essentially a professional troll/griefer, getting some press coverage in far-right media for said antics, but the reliable sources mention the subject's name in passing in part of the coverage of the troll/grief events themselves. ValarianB (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closer, this is verifiably false and should carry little weight. TIME Magazine, NBC Miami, The New Yorker (which did an in-depth profile), The Guardian, etc. etc. are hardly "far-right media." It is one thing to hold the position that a "troller/griefer" should not get an article, it's quite another to grossly misrepresent facts during an AfD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, Mr. Fleischman, why you chose to lie, but I'm sure the closer will be able discount your views accordingly. The Time and NBC sources mention the subject in passing only, neither are sufficient. The New Yorker is decent, but there we run afoul of WP:BLP1E, as others have noted. ValarianB (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry, I wasn't lying but I apparently misinterpreted your comment as saying that all press coverage was from far-right media. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject was in the News before June 2017. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 05:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refuted by WP:GOOGLEHITS. You can't point to a list and say "that shows notability" without evaluating the hits. In this case, several of the sources are the in-passing ones discounted above. The rest are hits to unreliable sources like Breitbart, to more in-passing mentions, and to "Project Veritas" itself. ValarianB (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, except that if you actually do evaluate the hits you'll see that a number of them are from reliable sources and satisfy BLP1E. Namely, there is no requirement for significant coverage concerning the other events (see first prong of BLP1E), and Loomer is very clearly not a low-profile individual (second prong of BLP1E). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are two more sources, from ABC Miami, with significant coverage about how Loomer secretly videotaped her professors in 2015 and faced criminal charges:

Milberg, Glenna (April 9, 2015). "Barry University professor files criminal complaint against student". WPLG.
Milberg, Glenna (March 30, 2015). "Barry University faculty accused of supporting Islamic State terrorists". WPLG.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Will update article. Thanks for the info. Dr. Fleischman Cllgbksr (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The video sources go beyond the written ones. They say Loomer took the professors' words out of context and "twisted" their advice to sound like support for ISIS, and they say Loomer was suspended just a few weeks before her graduation and was prevented from completing her degree. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to watch the videos but my internet is 'slow slow slow' and it kept pausing and buffering. Thanks for the heads up. (Can't believe she threw away a four year degree over that stunt.)Cllgbksr (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find out whether she ever completed her degree, after her suspension ended or at another college, but no luck. I also couldn't find anything about how far the criminal charges were pursued. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, A collection of news events on the same person does not seem appropriate as an article. Mrwrte 23:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwrite (talk • contribs) [reply]

Dunno what that means. By that logic we should delete most of our current events and sports BLPs. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I also don't know what that means. Geo Swan (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Closer, I got out in front of my skis thinking the Julius Caesar play disruption coverage was sufficient to establish subject's notability without thinking of WP:BLP1E. The non-trivial Barry University-Clinton infiltration coverage and the New Yorker profile of subject were necessary for article to pass muster, they were added after it was nominated for AfD and several delete votes. (I want to thank Dr. Fleischman for his research and his help with the article.) Not using good judgment is on me and I own it for making that mistake. Cllgbksr (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After the first couple of delete !votes, the article was expanded significantly, so further discussion is required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Dr Flieschman. Geo Swan (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Several contributors, including nominator, Black Kite, Valenciano, E.M.Gregory, Crash Underride, ValarianB assert Loomer is an example of a BLP1E. Hmmm. If Loomer had tried to execute a single hoax, wouldn't that be an instance of BLP1E. Even if she tried to execute the same hoax, multiple times, she might be considered an instance of a BLP1E. But, if she tried to execute a variety of different hoaxes, should we really consider her an instance of a BLP1E? Geo Swan (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am concerned that some of the delete opinions are associated with a sense of disapproval of Loomer's character. I think we have to be careful not to indulge in letting personal approval, or disapproval, of an individual's character, play a role in whether we think an article about them should be deleted or retained. --Aleccat 02:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article's sources are clearly reliable sources that cover the topic in-depth, albeit the article's poor writing. --Aleccat 02:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I concur my writing is poor. (Proper grammar, sentence structure, flow of article.) It's something I struggle with...Cllgbksr (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Revisting, but given that there is no WP:SIGCOV, no profiles or analysis, no accomplishment on Loomis' part beyond a political stunt or two that got her into a short-lived news cycle, nor have her stunts produced any impact beyond getting into a news cycle, I continue to fail to see a basis for notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just an observation, the Los Angeles Times wrote "Lastly, a profile of Laura Loomer, the woman who disrupted the Public’s production of “Julius Caesar.” (here) referring to The New Yorker article as a profile with a link for their readers. (here) Cllgbksr (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With reservations will reverse myself and vote on the article as it's creator. Believe article now passes muster based on the WP:SIGCOV subject received over the 2015 Barry University stunt (was covered multiple times as the story progressed, from coverage of release of video to the fallout coverage that followed), that went into depth on Loomer (her taping Barry U officials, covered her being a senior, honors student, communications major, president of Young Republicans, suspended from Barry U, criminal charges filed, i.e coverage was non-trivial) and the international WP:SIGCOV for the 2017 "Julius Caesar' disruption from very reliable sources (Guardian, WaPo, NY Times), the two events (Barry & Julius), both combined with Clinton campaign infiltration coverage by Time magazine in 2015, the WP:BLP1E reasoning for articles nomination for AfD now does not fit. Subject also received non-trivial profile coverage by The New Yorker that meets the minimum standards of WP:GNG. The article has been expanded since being nominated for AfD. Would like to thank first closer for the extended discussion, those who contributed to the article - especially since Loomer whose motivation to constantly "stir the pot" may be for her own personal gain and to generate attention (as The Washington Post mentioned on "Julius Caesar" disruption), and not for the reasons she cites. Cllgbksr (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2017 (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.