Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica C. Barnett (2nd nomination)

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 keep. There is an emerging consensus that since the subject has now had a book professionally published during the debate, earlier arguments carry less weight. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erica C. Barnett[edit]

[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)

This article was previously deleted on the consensus view that prodigious references amounted to WP:REFBOMBing. It was observed that this person, being a working journalist, has generated a great many bylines which - for a journalist - amount to WP:ROUTINE coverage that doesn't pass the biographical depth needed for WP:ANYBIO. The article was recreated with the rationale that a "full-length interview" now exists. That interview is a Q&A style interview on something called "bythesound.net. [1]" It The interview is not WP:INDEPENDENT and the source is not WP:RS.
Note to closer: during the last AfD, the subject of this article aggressively lobbied her Twitter followers to aid her efforts on Wikipedia by confronting the "assholes" [sic] who had nominated it for deletion. This resulted in a large influx of SPAs and long-term sleeper accounts. Chetsford (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC); edited 06:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, given your summary, I have to ask: is all this because you feel that Ms Barnett called you an asshole? If so, perhaps an apology can be arranged. Otherwise, there seems to be a conflation of two things: (1) the procedural errors Ms Barnett made when the page was first generated and she overreacted to BLP-inappropriate edits, and (2) the question of whether she is notable enough to merit an entry in the Wikipedia database.

These shouldn't have bearing on each other. For readers not familiar with (1), the procedural situation, a Wikipedian wrote up the entire incident in a blog post: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/erica-c-barnett-and-wikipedia-done-poorly-and-well/ . Since November 2019, it seems Ms Barnett has held back from further commissions of COI edits. I'm unclear on the extent to which Wikipedia policy is to remove pages of public figures who violate Wikipedia rules.

Regarding (2), I had to look up the term "REFBOMB" (a term which doesn't explicitly appear on the deletion discussion page): "a journalist might try to document every individual piece of work they ever produced for their employer, often citing that work's existence to itself". That's not what the happening here: most if not all of the articles linked are directly about Ms Barnett or some means by which she herself had an impact. Ms Barnett's page as it currently stands documents founding a media organization, instigating a small reform in the Seattle PD, a public confrontation with radio personalities, and a few other public events of note to at least some. All of these are far beyond mere mention of a byline.

In the previous discussion, one advocate for deletion wrote "There has to be multiple (two minimum; three is better), at length biographical essays or reportings about her life from cradle (or near cradle) to current".

There's something wrong here if this is the standard only for Ms Barnett. For example, Chetsford wrote a page on Raymond P. Ayres, whose highest achievement listed in his five-sentence Wikipedia page seems to be executive officer of the US Marine Band for some period beginning in the late 1960s. This is great! He should have a Wikipedia page! But if he should, then it is respectful to apply a similar standard of notability to others.

I recognize that there is no objective notability standard, but that is perhaps the point of a broad-interest site that covers both the history of the US Marine Band and figures in Seattle politics. But I do get the sense that the notability standard is being ratcheted up beyond the level of other pages because of the procedural issues or name-calling in (1), and I don't see how Wikipedia guidelines indicate that this is appropriate. B k (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"is all this because you feel that Ms Barnett called you an asshole" - Yikes, I didn't realize she did! I thought it was directed towards another editor. Anyway, no hard feelings on my part. I've been semi-active AFD'ing autobiographies and have been called worse. It comes with the territory in WP:COI article reviewing. Not a big deal.

"There's something wrong here if this is the standard only for Ms Barnett. For example, Chetsford wrote a page on Raymond P. Ayres," - We have a general precedent (WP:MILPEOPLE), albeit not a guideline, that presumes inherent notability for any person who has held flag rank in any nation is notable. If you have an issue with that you should nominate the article in question for deletion. This isn't really the correct forum to discuss the merits of Raymond Ayres, though. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Chetsford (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If (1), the early procedural mess, is not an issue, then I suggest that it not be mentioned. If it is an issue, I suggest explaining exactly how the events from last year discussed in the above blog affect the deletion discussion.

Regarding (2), notability: Chetsford, I was unaware of the military guideline, though even without that, I stand by my stated opinion that it's a great page and should stand. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS guidance you point to indicates that the existence of other pages can be relevant to a deletion question:

"identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia."

My read is that this is because GNG is fundamentally subjective, and comparison to other pages can help to calibrate it and break a "yes it is"/"no it isn't" deadlock. In the previous deletion discussion, I had pointed to Armenian journalists such as Levon Ananyan, whose page is more sparse than the one we are discussing, and which none of the readers of that thread flagged as not notable.

Besides the list already presented, it is easy to find journalists whose pages, unlike the one under discussion here, only discuss their reporting career, have been stable for years, and have never been flagged for deletion. I took a few minutes and found Geeta Guru-Murthy, Holly Williams (Australian journalist), Elizabeth Jackson (radio journalist), Kristian Foden-Vencil, Brian Lanker, and I could keep going—this is not a difficult exercise. Are these sufficient to establish a standard for what is currently treated as notability? If these pages are not notable, does the treatment of Ms Barnett indicate that it's time for a cleaning-of-house for journalist pages throughout the site?

The standard that a journalist must have several full biographies written about them before being notable is prima facie beyond what Wikipedia requires. I'm hoping that comparison with other pages that are stable and have never been marked for deletion may give us some way to more objectively handle the subjective question of notability. B k (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG based on [2][3][4] etc, and besides that, meets WP:ANYBIO, given that Barnett has made a unique contribution to her field, pioneering independent local journalism in the wake of mass layoffs in the newspaper industry. Numerous credits for scoops by major newspapers, TV, and other news media in Seattle verify this. See [5] [6][7][8][9] Barnett also has a book which has been reviewed by Publishers Weekly and Kirkus [10][11], meeting Wikipedia:Notability (books). We don't want separate stub articles about both Barnett and her memoir; it's usually best to gather someone's bio and their works in a single umbrella article and spawn sub-articles judiciously (per WP:Summary style), as with Caitlin Doughty, for example.
It's false to say bythesound.net is not independent. It's not owned, controlled by, or beholden to Barnett. Interviews definitely contribute weight to a bio's notability. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, to clarify, bythesound.net, while not RS, is indeed Independent. My reference to the interview not being independent is on the basis of our longstanding consensus (described here and elsewhere) that the content of a Q&A style interview is not independent, regardless of the source in which it's published. I apologize for any confusion my wording caused.

Barnett has made a unique contribution to her field, pioneering independent local journalism in the wake of mass layoffs in the newspaper industry ... Numerous credits for scoops by major newspapers, TV, and other news media in Seattle verify this - As I said in the original discussion, the fact she has "numerous credits (i.e. bylines)" and that she "pioneered independent local journalism" need to be connected by reliable sources making this unambiguous assertion. It is WP:OR for us to say "if A, then B". No quantity of bylines by themselves is proof she "pioneered independent local journalism". This is where the WP:REFBOMBing on which this article is based comes in ---- hundreds of bylines in which she's simply reporting on some thing or another but which don't report on her are crammed into the article to create the appearance of WP:SIGCOV. Chetsford (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's false. I didn't cite Barnett's bylines on that point. I cite articles by *other journalists*, where they call out Barnett by name to credit her with breaking a story that the other large organizations, major TV, newspaper, and internet media, missed.

Citation overkill is entirely beside the point here. Refbombing is a style issue, where the average reader isn't helped by seeing 4 or more footnotes after each sentence. If this were a WP:GA nomination discussion, refbombing could be a legitimate style problem. We don't delete articles because "too many citations". That's absurd.

It is true that the number of times *other journalist* have given Barnett credit is quite large. It wouldn't be necessary to have to enumerate them all here if we didn't have editors denying her unique contribution. Denying that she is unique in Seattle media, that there are no other independent journalists who are so frequently credited with scoops by major organizations. You could find people of similar stature in other cities, I suppose, but I would expect such independent journalists who get credited with scoops as often as Barnett also meet the notability criteria.

Anyway, please cite which of the, in your words, "large influx of SPAs and long-term sleeper accounts" were identified as sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or otherwise had the !votes struck as invalid or canvassed. I can't find any evidence that anybody's contribution to the previous AfD was deemed invalid, or blocked for multiple accounts, or canvassing. Casting aspersions in this way without evidence is misleading. Most editors will read your accusation and accept it on good faith, but they shouldn't. You have cited no evidence. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist and blogger. Q&A interviews do not passing GNG make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks no different than the last time. She has some bylines and is mentioned in a few stories, but nothing that clears any notability hurdle in my opinion. The cited reviews of her book strike me as fairly trivial and i disagree that her reporting is in any way a "unique contribution to her field". What exactly is unique about a reporter doing their job? Bonewah (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As with last time, if the list of scoops she is credit with by other major media are not unique, then why can no one cite examples of any other Seattle reporters who have similar credits? The examples are there in the article, and the last AfD. The article cites expert reliable sources who call out Barnett unique contribution. No reliable sources dispute it. If all reporters doing their job get just as many credits for scoops from other journalists, then it would be easy to cite them and show that Barnett is not unique. How many independent journalists who rely on crowdfunding after the waves of newspaper layoffs regularly get credits for breaking stories that the major media missed? Citing examples of them would prove Barnett is not notable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, Bonewah, do you have anything beyond personal opinion to back up your measure of notability? Wikipedia is a bureaucracy WP:BURYES, and we need more than subjective opinions. Above, I reprinted the guidance from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that one means of deciding notability is to compare with other stable, not-controversial pages (here I'll say more than five years old). Here are ten more local journalist pages to add to the six above which, unlike this page, list no claims to fame other than their reporting career:

Never marked for deletion:

Nominated for deletion, and ruled keep with less non-byline info than this page:

Steve Handelsman

Anya Kamenetz

Finding stable pages with less out-of-byline information is a shooting fish in a barrel exercise. Of course, there are journalists who have far longer résumés, but being in the middle of the pack would indicate keep and not delete.

I'd love to see some engagement with this or other proposed means of making the fundamentally subjective question of notability more objective. How can we apply the same standard used for stable pages throughout Wikipedia with this one?

There's something wrong when the established Wikipedia standard for possibly hundreds of journalists is a good career, while for this page it has become "multiple ... at length biographical essays or reportings about her life from cradle ... to current" (and, evidently, from sources editors don't brush off as not established enough). No matter how well-meaning the motivations of the editors may be, it's hard to distinguish ratcheted-up standards from WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is why Wikipedia falls apart if we invent new norms for every page.

I didn't add more references or pull lines from the reviews because I was trying to satisfy the barrage of accusations of refbombing and puffery. Half the delete votes are that there is too much information and praise on the page; half are that there isn't enough information and praise. B k (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the refs listed here are underwhelming. Consider these [12] [13][14][15][16]. All of them (except perhaps the last, i hit a paywall) simply say that the story was first reported by Barnett, which is exactly what reporters do. Saying she is notable for breaking a story is like saying a bus driver is notable for driving a bus. The first three [17][18][19] are all the same story: her getting kicked off nextdoor for violating their TOS. You can add 6 more refs for that story and ill still say its underwhelming. A lot of links to the same unimportant story doesnt make the story important, nor does it make a non-notable subject notable simply by volume. So if that is what people are saying refbombing about, then i agree. Bonewah (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I'd love to see some engagement with this or other proposed means of making the fundamentally subjective question of notability more objective." - You may want to try Wikipedia:Village pump to advance suggestions about fundamental changes to our notability policies. In general, we can't make changes to policy in an AfD discussion, however, Village Pump would be a great place to explore possible changes to policy that would make this BLP policy compliant if it is unable to achieve notability under our current standards. Chetsford (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"In general, we can't make changes to policy in an AfD discussion". Chetsford, I 100% agree with you. There is a standard, established by literally decades of Wikipages about journalists. I hope those commenting have looked at some of the samples above to see what this standard, which is well-established, looks like. For example, the discussion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anya_Kamenetz went only a few paragraphs before a decision to keep was made because her one book was reviewed by sources comparable to those that reviewed _Quitter_. Other articles cited above have comparable content, meaning less than this page. The reason this discussion is so long is that editors are, as you note, attempting to develop a new standard for only this page that does not match Wikipedia's well-established precedent for journalist pages such as the 16 stable and established example pages I've provided. Thank you for pointing out Wikipedia:Village pump for people who would like to change the standard to "at length biographical essays" or other ad hoc rules that do not match existing Wikipedia standards for journalists—in some of the above cases satisfied by as little as one book or a few notable articles—which this page easily falls into.— Preceding unsigned comment added by B k (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has millions of articles and a high percentage of them are poor quality. Probably tens of thousands would get deleted if tested at AFD. You cannot judge our standards by comparing to random articles. None of those articles has been through any kind of serious quality review, and two of them are tagged for notability issues. If you want to make comparisons with other articles, pick something from the Wikipedia:Featured articles list. Those have been carefully reviewed and are a true representation of our standards. If you have some sensible comparisons there, I might start to listen, but until then it is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

The claim that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy deserves a lot of criticism, but not for the reasons in that essay which has no widespread support in the community. It is self-evidently wrong. As far as editing rights are concerned, there are no formal division of powers or heirarchy. Administrators have no power whatsoever to decide on editorial content beyond their abilities as ordinary editors. You have demonstrated yourself that there is no "standardized procedure (rule-following) that dictates the execution of most or all processes" here. You moved this article out of draft space without going through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process, the very process the draft space was designed to support. Nobody stopped you doing that or banned you from the site afterwards. Of course, you wouldn't have half the problems you have now if you had gone through the process and let someone else review it first before moving. SpinningSpark 13:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ms. Barnett is an accomplished journalist in several Seattle publications as a reporter and as an editor, is a (soon-to-be) published author with a major publishing company, and currently produces independent reporting that is picked up by many mainstream sources. Irrespective of how well-written this article is, its subject merits a Wikipedia article of her own. White 720 (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the denials, there is definitely some refbombing going on here. Considering that the lead of an article is meant to be a summary of the article body (and as such, referencing is not normally expected in the lead at all), and considering that this version was meant to address the problems from the first AfD, then why does the simple statement that Barnett is known for pioneering crowdsourced journalism need four citations in the lead? Two of those are Barnett talking about herself, so we can hardly consider those as verifying she is a pioneer, one has a passing mention of her as influential in Seattle, and the fourth, The Daily article, I can't access. Searching for "Barnett" on that site gets "bot blocked" so something dodgy is going on there. If anyone thinks that article does actually have something substantial, please e-mail it to me. On interviewes, we definitely consider those primary, non-independent sources as explained in the essay WP:INTERVIEW. There's not much visible in guidelines about that, but it is there in a footnote in WP:PRIMARY. While interviews are not unusable as sources, they do not establish notability, and they cannot be used for establishing a person's reputation. So as it stands, despite multiple references, the claim that Barnett is a "pioneer" remains unverified. All that has been established about Barnett is that she is a busy journalist, but that does not make her notable, SpinningSpark 12:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All these comments about refbombing and how the lead is written are irrelevant: see WP:NOTCLEANUP. Whether you can access a source or not is irrelevant. See WP:SOURCEACCESS, WP:PAYWALL, WP:LINKROT. You should trust your fellow editors per WP:AGF. If you need access to a source, ask the WP:RX or WP:Reference desk, but unless proved otherwise, assume good faith. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is all very true, but what refbombing does do is obscure the refs (if any) that actually do support notability and discuss the subject in depth. Are there any? So far, I'm not seeing it. SpinningSpark 18:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have every right to your judgement as to whether the cited sources meet the notability standards.

Last time around, Chetsford deleted content as uncited, or tagged it with {{Citation needed}}, so citations were dutifully provided, as requested. Now the very citations we were asked to give are "refbombing"? Which somehow is a reason to delete an article? Damned if you do, damned if you don't, am I right?

I would argue that the work of this discussion here is obscured filling up the page with unfounded accusations of canvassing from the previously closed AfD, repeatedly raising the non-issue of refbombing as if it had any bearing on notability, asserting an interview is a primary source, having to refute that it is a primary source for notability purposes, then asserting again it is a primary source. If you think an interview in an independent publication is self-published the same as anybody's personal MySpace or Twitter, then you go to that publication and make them publish an interview with yourself. Make them publish every word you say, unedited. It doesn't work, does it?

Independent organizations select whom to interview; interviewees don't select themselves. Interviewees don't control how much space is devoted to quotations of themselves, or which questions are asked, or which questions and answers are edited out.

The fact that an individual was interviews and it was published adds weight evidence of notability. A long, in-depth interview in a major publication adds a lot of weight. A short capsule interview, a single line quoted in an article about a different topic, in a minor publication adds only a little weight.

The facts asserted in quotations by a person interviewed can be WP:NOTRELIABLE, or only reliable as assertion of fact about the speaker. It is this sense in which an interview is a primary source and can be cited for a fact if: 1) the individual asserts about themselves, or 2) in which the individual is a widely recognized expert. But nobody is questioning any factual claims by Barnett about herself or her area of expertise in any interviews, and no facts in the article cite her quotes alone as a source. And even if they did, AfD is not cleanup, and it's irrelevant to an AfD discussion. Might want to re-read WP:INTERVIEW. The essay says exactly what I just said: "interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability. The material provided to the interview by the interviewer and the publication is secondary. The material provided by the interviewee may be primary, if the interviewee is speaking about his own life, or may be secondary, if the interviewee is recognized as an expert on the subject being reported."

Links to the specific sources which I claim meet the bar of WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, as well as WP:NBOOK, are cited in my !vote. Others have pointed out which sources they think meet the bar. If you find those unconvincing, that's totally fine. But all these red herrings do not help anybody reach a consensus for either keep or delete; it only muddies the waters. All of what I'm saying is spelled out in Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you can cite that from INTERVIEW and come to exactly the opposite conclusion from what it actually says. If the interviewee is talking about herself it is PRIMARY and does not add to her notability. If she is talking about something else, and she is a recognised expert in that something else, then it is SECONDARY and adds the notability of something else, but it doesn't add to her notability. And you are right, I don't find the sources you mentioned convincing. SpinningSpark 20:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How? Here's how: Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." Is it primary or secondary? Let's read: "The material provided to the interview by the interviewer and the publication is secondary. The material provided by the interviewee may be primary, if the interviewee is speaking about his own life, or may be secondary".

It goes on to describe how some trivial interviews add little to notability, contrasted with serious interviews by respected media, meaning, exactly as I just said, "the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent and contributes to the claim that the subject has meet the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline."

Wikipedia:Interviews is only an essay, not policy, but it very much agrees with everything I've said. It's entirely legitimate to judge the interview cited here as adding weight to Barnett's notability. How much? It depends, but when you add that to the long list of other evidence, coming from multiple lines of reasoning -- impact on public events, unique contribution to her field, author of a notable book -- you'd really have to have a personal idiosyncratic desire to prevent Erica Barnett from having a bio on Wikipedia to insist the only choice is to delete.

It's fine to !vote delete, but support for that is not found in the pages you cited. They say the opposite. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can shout quotes at me all you like but it won't make them mean what you want them to mean. "Material provided by the interviewer" means something other than his questions and her answers. Barnett talking about herself is unarguably primary and INTERVIEW says exactly that, you just quoted it yourself. SpinningSpark 09:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great points, Spinningspark. I'm also not seeing any. Chetsford (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's saying that if you're interviewed at all, if an interview of you is published at all, you have some notability. In simple terms: "interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." Not merely the parts contributed by the interviewer; as a whole. And shouting is writing in all caps. Bold is not shouting. Nobody is being uncivil to you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can we get a WP:THREE please? Stifle (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle - since no one else has replied, I'll offer it. I would just caveat this by noting that I am the one who nominated this for deletion.

"Reporter’s Nextdoor account suspended temporarily after she shares user comments from forum involving Seattle Police chief (geekwire.com)"

"Politics Website Publicola to Return" (Seattle Times)

"Erica C. Barnett (and her Mad List of Sources) Joins PubliCola Staff" (seattlemet.com)

Chetsford (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Stop it with the walls of text, please. Nobody reads them. Instead, make concise statements about whether or not this person is notable based on our policies and guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - A second published book would make this a nonissue. It will also be a nonissue if, once her book is published, it becomes a bestseller, or is reviewed in multiple RS, such as The New York Times, Time, The New Yorker, etc. (Kirkus and Publishers Weekly are RS, but perhaps not enough). She seems to be a fine reporter, but I don't see enough RS coverage of her right now. I started an article similar to this one, Jill Leovy, but that subject's book was nominated for a literary award...and also was not a memoir (subjective, but I think it matters in this case, where this article is still overly promotional). Caro7200 (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of this article has many bylines, but not enough RS about the subject. An unpublished book does not add to notability. The article is also full of WP:PUFFERY and, if kept, the lead needs to be completely rewritten. --Kbabej (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [20] and [21] provide significant independent coverage of the subject in reliable sources. They do refer to the same incident, yes, but as a prominent reporter who is not primarily known for this one incident, she clearly doesn't fall under WP:BLP1E. This is a new source I found; once the article starts talking about her getting sued it's clear that it is about her rather than simply citing her. The book reviews combine with all those sources to push her over the bar IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That source was already in the article (source 29 as of your date stamp). Chetsford (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Whether a source is currently being used in the article or not doesn't change the subject's notability, of course. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Chetsford (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep her book is reviewed by Kirkus [22] which makes her notable, as per previous afd's regarding notability of authors, and the other refs are enough to pass [WP:BASIC}.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

her book is reviewed by Kirkus which makes her notable - I'm unfamiliar with that policy. Chetsford (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said it was a policy. It's a !vote, arguing that it meets WP:BASIC. Which is a guideline, not a policy, and nobody claimed it was. This "oh that's not a policy" stuff is a strawman, with no actual point behind it. Other than to draw out a debate.
Why do you have to badger everyone who dares to disagree with you? You already posted your arguments for why you think reviews at Kirkus and Publishers Weekly aren't sufficient. Everyone read what you said. Obviously what you said wasn't convincing for this editor. Unless you have something new to add to your previous argument against Kirkus, bludgeoning the point wastes everyone's time
Anyway, you're right. Is not a policy. You win that one, at least against the non-existent point of view that "kirkus = keep". Good one. Please don't do this with the next !vote and the next and the next. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other than to draw out a debate. This is a discussion where we freely exchange ideas and perspectives with each other, not a poll (see WP:PNSD). I regret if you find our process off-putting. Why do you have to badger everyone who dares to disagree with you? By my tally, both your comment count and word count eclipse mine here, Dennis, the latter by a factor of three. Indeed, the giant wall of text in the middle of the page is largely a tête-à-tête between you and Spinning Spark. And yet I don't consider you to be badgering anyone. I celebrate your enthusiasm at participating in this discursive, consensus-building process. Thank you for your contributions and intense passion on this topic! Chetsford (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop bludgeoning everyone. Opinions are here to be put by editors. WP:NBOOK is the wikipedia notability guideline essay for books and is the accepted standard. When a book is notable, which Barnetts'book actually meets because it has two or more independent reviews, which Kirkus deffo is regarded as being enough on its own, then the author is generally accepted as standard as being notable. With the additional non significant refs, these all lead to my answering of WP:BASIC . At the nd of the day the admin will decide who has put the most compelling vote against wikipedia criteria, and not one person challenging every editors opinion.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davidstewartharvey. I've commented or requested clarification in response to four of the eleven !votes here and, by wordcount, am only the third most prolific commenter in this discussion. That's not WP:BLUDGEONing. On WP, AfD is a process for "discussion, debate and collaboration" (WP:PNSD). If you find that process disagreeable then I do apologize.

In any case, if you're open to continuing an informative discussion, I was hoping you could clarify something else. You cite WP:NBOOK which is a standard used for books, not people. Did you mean WP:NAUTHOR? Thanks so much, in advance, for your willingness in helping me better understand your opinion so I can evaluate, calibrate and reflect on my own. Chetsford (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean other than the reasons already posted above for having an article about the author rather than the book? If another editor !votes keep for the same reasons, are you going to ask them to re-post why we'd prefer to cover the book under an article about the author, rather than have a stub about the book? So you can re-post your counter-arguments already posted above? Ad infinitum?

Bludgeoning. AGF includes assuming that when an editor posts something at the bottom of a discussion, they did their due diligence, having read prior comments, in order to add to the ongoing discussion rather than repeat points already made. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean other than the reasons already posted above for having an article about the author rather than the book? I'm not sure I understand your argument here. Could you elaborate to help me consider it more fully? Chetsford (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I said in my original !vote above. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a writer's book that has received a couple of reviews does not mean that the writer meets WP:NAUTHOR as the book also needs to be "significant or well-known" (from point no. 3), i do not see this being the case with Quitter ie. it is only held in around 22 libraries. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If more discerning sources who review the book mean that the book and by extension author are more notable, perhaps this New York Times review would fit that criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9600:355:A13B:73C9:791D:6B9C (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that 700-word review in the NYT, we now have an interview on local TV, and a 1600-word interview on Crosscut.com, which has published Barnett's journalism.

With Kirkus, PW, and the NYT, plus the local ones, the memoir now easily meets WP:BOOKCRIT, as "the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself". The simplest thing is to keep the bio article, and allow local consensus to deal with whether to maintain a bio article with a section about the memior, or move to a book article with a biographical subsection, or split into two articles. All questions that are outside the scope of AfD. Continuing to split hairs over notability is moving into WP:SNOWBALL territory. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:NBOOK establishes the criteria by which a book is notable as linked to the quantity of reviews, WP:NAUTHOR - as noted by Coolabahapple - does not. Per point 3 in NAUTHOR, there is a two-part test: (a) the book must have received multiple independent reviews or been turned into a TV series, film, etc., and (b) the book must be significant and well-known. I'm not seeing that this meets part B. If it gets short-listed for the Pulitzer Prize, the Nobel Prize, the National Book Award, the Man Booker Prize, etc., we might have a more solid case. But we need some objective measurement of it being "well known" (separate from review quantity which is covered in clause A of criteria 3), and not just, "I've read it". And, as noted by others WP:BOOKCRIT establishes whether a book, not the author, is notable. Erica Barnett is a human being, and not a book, so is covered by NAUTHOR instead. This is a fundamental distinction since notability of a BLP requires biographical detail beyond what would be found in editorial coverage of a book and books may be notable, while their author may not. Chetsford (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find it somewhat ridiculous that, where authorship is known and the book is an autobiography, notability of the work is not also notability of the author. If the book is notable for the work contained within and the work is the actual life experience of the author, it’s impossible to argue that the author is not notable while the book is since they are one and the same. Outside of pseudonym, ghostwriting, and anonymous works, has there ever been a nonfiction autobiography of notoriety that saw its author not be notable? I would say it’s inherently paradoxical and absolutely violating the spirit of the standards of NAUTHOR and NBOOK for an overly strict textual reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:87 (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here Here! This discussion has happened on other AFD's of authors - an author must be notable if we recognise that the book is notable, especially when its an autobiography.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this information. So we can better understand the context of these AfDs, could you provide links to three or four? Chetsford (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to accept that creators inherit notability from their works. Notability is not inherited, after all. It's simply that it's rulebound and bureaucratic to delete Erica C. Barnett only to turn around create a new Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery article that will contain virtually the same content -- especially since a summary of the book is equivalent to a bio of Barnett. We already have an article in front of us, and even if both book and author meet notability (!votes are split), we probably don't yet want two articles (see WP:NOPAGE and WP:SUMMARY STYLE). If a creator who didn't meet WP:BIO had two notable works, it's usually better to have umbrella article on the creator rather than two stubs on the works. The WP:NOPAGE guideline means that just because we can create an article on something doesn't mean we must: we often cover the content in a different context that serves the reader better. We know there will be at least one article on the author and the book. To go on and on debating notability as if the outcome will be no coverage of Barnett on Wikipedia is beating a dead horse, and that's what the WP:Snowball clause is for. Keeping what we have, expanding the section on the book with the new sources we are now seeing, and then deciding what to do with it once it takes shape is the essence of what Wikipedia:Editing policy is all about. And that one, Editing policy, is a policy, not a mere guideline like all these other rules we're throwing around. When we say deletion is a last resort, that comes out of the policy; WP:CANTFIX. Keeping it around so we can work out what to eventually do with it comes out of this policy: WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So no? Chetsford (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Librarian here. Her book was published today. It is standard for newly published works to take a bit of time to make their way into library collections, get properly processed by each library, and then each library does their regular batch upload to WorldCat. Check back in a month or two. Gamaliel (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a case of WP:TOOSOON then? Chetsford (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a case of this metric being completely irrelevant. Viking is a major publisher, that's the yardstick Wikipedia has always used, not counting transitory library holdings. Gamaliel (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Viking is a major publisher, that's the yardstick Wikipedia has always used" I'm not familiar with a policy that says a book by a major publisher establishes the author of that book's notability. Chetsford (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A published memoir from a major publisher, a career in journalism substantiated by reliable sources. Maybe she wasn't notable when this article was created, but she certainly is now. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Gamaliel (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as is the presumption of the default for AFD, because in addition to Barnett appearing notable, at an absolute minimum to the community where she exists, for the reasons already given by other editors, the continued refined specificity over what may or may not make her notable "in the future" is approaching the absurd. She's written a body of journalistic work for which she has been recognized; she's written a book which, while containing details of her own life, also makes points about the general health issues she describes and has been both been reviewed and the subject of media coverage; and she's recognizable in her field. To now say "well, if she wins the Nobel Prize then perhaps she'd be notable" is both a stretch for all other notability and a tautology. To call Barnett "notable" is not an unreasonable conclusion to reach and, considering the twin defaults of "to keep the article" and "deletion is a last resort," we've clearly passed that point in favor of moving on with improving the article instead of finding more possible checkmarks Barnett could theoretically try to tick. U (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not going to re-cite the examples of notable events, interviews, &c already given. I created this page because I think the subject is about as notable as the typical journalist on Wikipedia. I think enough people are going to be curious about the subject that they'll type her name into a search engine and we can provide a fair and neutral description of her.

I'm still concerned by the standards being cited by the delete votes. Some editors have required cradle-to-now bios, nomination for a Nobel Prize, and comparison to pages about other journalists only when those pages have been featured articles. If these were the real standards for Wikipedia, it would have thousands and not millions of pages. Remember Donna Strickland, who was deemed not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia until she literally did win a Nobel? I don't know if Ms Barnett will win a Nobel for _Quitter_, but that Dr Strickland's page spent a public news cycle as an embarrassment to Wikipedia shows that we can't raise the bar anywhere near that high, especially on an ad hoc basis, especially on an ad hoc basis for a woman.

I also get a sense of moving the goal posts: a cradle-to-now bio did turn up, but it was deemed not sufficient for notability because she was involved, or the source wasn't deemed good enough. The delete discussion last time concluded that the article was too soon and we should wait for the book to come out and some coverage to appear (that's why it was left as a draft and not 100% deleted); I did and other editors said that it's still too soon. One editor comments that Kirkus isn't notable enough and maybe an NYT review would be sufficient, then the NYT review shows up and that's not good enough either.

She did some interesting things that third parties wrote about, and wrote a book with a very well-regarded publisher. Be it for love or hate, lots of people think she's worth knowing about. That's more than enough to take up one row in Wikipedia database tables of millions of rows. B k (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She's clearly notable regionally, which is good enough. However, because she is openly involved in editing this page and is gaming the system by bringing attention to this Article for Deletion page to her Twitter followers, some impartial admins should keep tabs on this page. Ideally admins not in the Seattle area, perhaps from the UK. It would be problematic for her to own this page, which is simply in her character. And it would be problematic for her many haters to own this page as well.

Unflattering content is not vandalism in and of itself. Barnett has several documented incidents of questionable ethics: The Atlantic incident, taking quotes out of context on the Nextdoor.com story (which is frustrating because it simply invalidates her premise and helps her detractors), her (mean-spirited) story about disabled bus riders, initiating unwarranted suspicions and rumors about black activists at the BLM protests, and I suppose the wine stealing incident. On the other hand she has over two decades of legitimate journalism and some solid reporting. If a reliable source has actually called her a "pioneer", it should be in the article. However she recently pointed out that all Seattle journalists "know each other", so I'm skeptical about that reliability.

In my humble opinion, her ego and immaturity are her worst enemies, which is worth mentioning because those enemies have already edited this page. At any rate, this has gone on long enough and has plenty of Keep votes already.--71.212.13.9 (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2020 (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.