Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Ember

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Ember

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Empty bio of a young, perfectly ordinary beat reporter. No evidence of major stories broken or covered, no journalism prizes, or a career, even, as she's apparently in her mid-twenties. Calton | Talk 22:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No credible claim of notability. The Politico source has a trivial mention of her and it would be difficult to believe that her wedding announcement in the NYT was independent of her being an NYT employee. Subject is basically a cub reporter, for whom this article is TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started this article. The subject of this article passes WP:GNG for being the subject of articles for multiple events. When a person repeatedly enters the media as the subject of journalism for different reasons over a period of time then they merit a Wikipedia article. I restored previously deleted citations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This person is part of 5 media narratives, each of which appear in multiple third party sources:

journalism appointment noteworthy enough to be reported in other non-press release news stories, including a history of the position
marriage were the narrative is always that she married into Bain & Company
LA Times conflict with Disney and reporting the media leak and subsequent reorganization
this person and her writing critiqued on expertise on United States foreign policy for Central America
this person publishing lobbyist statements but neglecting to note the affiliation

Any one of these is an argument for passing WP:GNG. Will anyone dispute that? Blue Rasberry (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first bit is routine run-of-the-mill hiring details. All of the rest are a bunch of minor bits cobbled together in a rather clumsy attempt at coatracking, to build an attack page on a journalist doing her job. --Calton | Talk 22:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless something that feels more balanced and substantive can be created. A couple of minor controversies is a dicey basis for an article on a living person. Haukur (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a general beat reporter -- even one employed by a large media outlet -- does not typically meet the criteria for notability pursuant to WP:JOURNALIST. Many non-notable figures have a wedding announcement story in the Sunday Styles section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.9.185 (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being employed by a large company does not make anyone notable. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just having a job does not make someone notable - the article does not establish notability per WP:ANYBIO or WP:JOURNALIST - Two sentences does not an encyclopedic article make WP:2 SENTENCES - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2019 (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.