Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judi McLeod

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. J04n(talk page) 11:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judi McLeod[edit]

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

~~Non-notable editor of an online publication Rupert Rostenkowski (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2018(UTC)— Rupert Rostenkowski~~ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

A wildly inaccurate summary of a long career in journalism, with a website at the end of years of reporting for mainstream newspapers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. Her firing from her job as a reporter in 1983 caused a flap that got INDEPTH coverage at the time, and has been discussed since, for example, in a book by philosophy professor Randal Marlin that I just added to the page. Some of the 1983 articles have bio details that could be used to expand article. Plus her writing gets cited pretty widely, which is what notability for a journalist is all about. Note that I tagged Nom as a SPA, a brand new editor who, given the strong sourcing in article and the highly political nature of McLeod's writing, appears to be WP:NOTHERE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised you are saying the article has "strong sourcing" when many of the sources, all of them about anything after the mid-80s or so, are self-published. I also don't see any evidence that she's "cited pretty widely". There are a number of well-known right wing platforms such as Rebel in Canada or Breitbart in the US that I do see widely cited, but not Canada Free Press whose tech seems to be about 20 years out of date (no video, no audio, just old fashioned web design). The only strong sourcing is for the fact that she worked for a weekly community newspaper in the 1980s and got into a dispute with her employer. I don't think that is especially notable. The last 25 years or so of her career don't seem to have garnered much in the way of coverage anywhere outside of her own self-published efforts. Also, looking at older versions of the article, it seems anything she's done in recent years that is notable received negative coverage and was removed from the article at some point. Rupert Rostenkowski (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flatly untrue assertions. But the edit history both of this article and of an article on her website [1] that may have been deleted in some irregular way, show that IPs and SPAs have been deleting, editing, and fighting over her pages for many years. An IP was tagging and deleting material on this page this morning. And this comment by User:Rupert Rostenkowski shows a great deal of familiarity with Wikipedia for an editor who has been here for only a few days and a handful of edits.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EM Gregory should focus on the merits of the article rather than engage in ad hominem character assassinations of editors. I have been editing as an IP for a long time but created an account because you can't create an AFD without one, and then forgot to log back in. He says, "An IP was tagging and deleting material on this page this morning", that is highly misleading and prejudicial. All that happened was in one edit[2] I restored some material I found in an earlier version of the article and then three minutes later I self-reverted[3] when I realized the source links weren't working so EM's claim that I was "deleting" material is a half-truth. I actually self-reverted. As for "tagging", I tagged a number of claims for being unsourced and several sources for being self-published.[4] EM has not claimed that a single one of those tags were unjustified yet he again insinuates that something untowards was done. The fact that he subsequently attempted to find third party sources to replace the self-published ones and/or substantiated the unsourced claims only shows that the tagging was a) justified and b) his insinuations to the contrary, as well as his claim that my statements were "flatly untrue assertions", were unfair and baseless. Rupert Rostenkowski (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only genuinely serious claim of notability here, the blip of media coverage she got in 1983 for being fired from The Brampton Times, just makes her a WP:BLP1E. She doesn't have any genuinely substantive coverage about her outside of that context — all of the other sources here are either her publication's own self-published content about itself, or glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage whose subject is somebody other than her. This is not the stuff, or the sourceability status, that makes for permanent enduring ten-year test-passing encyclopedic notability. Bearcat (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN I cleaned it up a little and made a start with a little expand, source. Her career has continued to draw SIGCOV attention in the decades since the 1983 brouhaha. She worked for mainstream publications, notably the Toronto Sun, before founding the extreme right wing website she now runs. I suggest that we merge The Bramptonian (a short-lived publication she founded with her husband) to this article. Overall, the article as I have left it is not a particularly flattering profile of a career, and there is more detail available in new archive searches, but I believe that I have now added enough to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Bearcat (talk · contribs). Despite all the work put in by E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs), this is still a classic WP:BLP1E--outside of that one event, nothing has been written about her. Yilloslime (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Were you able to read the articles to which the page is sourced? I ask, because I read them on a paywalled Proquest search, and because you comment puzzles me. To assert that "nothing has been written about her" post-1983, when the page quotes from and cites sources that offer SIGCOV of her work as a journalist in the 80s and 90s, articles in reputable publications including the Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, even academic sources including Alternatives: Global, Local, Political covering her career after the 1983 firing E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I was about to say that she is a journalist who turned into a right-wing polemicist (and sometime conspiracy theorist), that masses of material have been added to and deleted form this page since it was created in 2005, and that I have not been through those old edits to see whether they contain well sourced information. I had never heard of her until she appeared on the AUTHORS list at AfD and I ran my usual Proquest search. But I now see that Yillowslime edited the page a number of timesback in 2009, adding substantive content [5], [6], and making some fixes but NOT tagging the article for notability. Look, I don't know anything about McLeod's website and have not read her writings, but from the articles and books that popped up when I googled her for notability, I'd say that the bit that Yillowslime added a decade ago: "Conservative writer Kevin Michael Grace has described McLeod's writing as that of an "emotionally incontinent ninth grader," pegged McLeod pretty accurately (long since scrubbed from page, presumably in one of the scores of mass deletions this page has undergone.) But it was easy to quickly find RS on her and her career, particularly between ~ 1983 and ~1991 (when she appears to have taken a dive off the right edge of the pool into the deep end.) I do not understand Yillowslime's comment or Bearcat's.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Cover" and mention unfortunately mean two very different things and I do not see many sources that "cover" her substantially. Bearcat said it best: ...glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage whose subject is somebody other than her.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slick, can you please be specific? I ask because your comment puzzled me so much that I have just looked at all 16 citations, and I cannot figure out which one is a mere "namecheck."E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for journalists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - thanks to the WP:HEYMANN work fromE.M.Gregory.Hmlarson (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if her publication isn't notable hard to see how she is for publishing it. 30 year old employment dispute with community weekly newspaper isn't enough. Freedom789 (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)— Example (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: this article just passed WP:GNG at time of nomination. After E.M.'s amazing work, finding additional sources, adding content, the article is now a solid Keep.– Lionel^(talk) 03:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that both Nom and User:Freedom789 are brand-new accounts, and that I have opened an SPI.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Rupert Rostenkowski and Freedom789 are Confirmed to Nixon Now (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources to establish notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it's a shame she has a forum for her ignorance, but to a lesser degree than similarly-positioned Ann Coulter, she is notable. I wish I could read the ProQuest sources - the article is very heavily sourced with paywall content - but from what I can see, it's a weak keep. What's missing is a section about her controversial views - that's as much what makes her notable as her earlier real journalistic history. Indeed, one of the only sources I can read lists several of her doozies. [[7]] But that's a matter for the talk page, not here. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:23, 22 May 2018 (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.