Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linette Lopez

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. The WP:HEY expansion is welcomed but has not been definitively agreed as proving notability. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linette Lopez[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)

the subject is not verified by reliable in-depths media sources; no achievements found - just a mere journalist in the US NortonAngo (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A "mere journalist"? We are off to a strong start here I see. Independent reliable third-party sources found it notable enough to publish articles about Ms. Lopez and they are cited on the article. Also, I do not see any reason to believe that the steps listed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating have been taken. QRep2020 (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
share here the reliable sources you are talking about NortonAngo (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the article. QRep2020 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Beast isn't an acceptable source, her biography isn't acceptable, the rest are trivial mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bloomberg is from their Hyperdrive portal, not the main site, and the article isn't about her. WTTF is ok-ish, but that's about all. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though a redirect/merge of some of the content into Elon Musk may be in order. The sources are a mixed bag of those which cannot be used to establish WP:NOTABILITY (non-WP:INDEPENDENT site bio and a link to a webpage for the subject's alma mater which seems to serve no purpose but to pad the reflist), and those which do include reference to the subject, but incidental to discussion of the actual focus of those articles: the conduct of Elon Musk, who this reporter has covered and been publicly attacked by. While there are a half dozen of these, and they start to push slightly towards in-depth coverage, the extremely narrow relevance and constrained period of time they cover doesn't really come close to meeting the threshold for ongoing, detailed coverage of the subject of this article. She may very well warrant an article where these sources become relevant eventually--and in the meantime, I would argue some of the details are very probably WP:DUE at the Musk article--but WP:GNG is not met at this time. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the article's contents won't fit on Elon Musk as that article explores his activities and history in a more general sense. Secondly, the article also demonstrates that Musk's mistreatment of Lopez is targeted and continuous due to her prior coverage of him and his businesses. The independent reliable sources also present this observation across time, therefore it is notable and worthy of staying on Wikipedia, and as she is the subject of the mistreatment she is as well. Thirdly, beyond Musk, Lopez's journalistic work constitutes over 3,000 articles: https://muckrack.com/lopezlinette , an outstanding amount of reporting in its own right.

I honestly believe that there are plenty of other secondary sources about Lopez, whether in regards to Musk or about her own work, so I implore editors to focus on enriching the article instead of this AfD. QRep2020 (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you have that test backwards: if you are confident that there are sources that you think would further validate the subject's notability, you are more than welcome to find and present them. But no one is compelled to do it for you. And if they aren't found and presented by someone, policy does not direct us to assume that they do exist just because you've assured us you think they do; quite the opposite, we have to presume they don't, absent a showing that they do. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of many that got caught in the whims of Elon as he runs twitter as he sees fit; I can't find substantial coverage about her, other than being named along with other people that got caught up in the kerfuffle. Sources used in the article an un-RS or simply biographical articles. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

or !Merge to a "twitter controversies since Elon bought it" article, there seems to be one every month now... Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, she wasn't notable before the twitter incident, she was just another working journalist. I'm not sure being one of many that got banned in a twitter fluff makes her notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She is indeed notable for being a reporter who Musk has retaliated against multiple times now. The Twitter incident pales in comparison to when she broke the Martin Tripp story really. QRep2020 (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry QRep, but the onus is upon the party asserting notability to provide sources which establish significant coverage of the subject. The consensus so far is that some of the sourcing does not qualify as WP:RS, and the remaining mentions are incidental and short-term, therefore failing WP:SIGCOV, WP:NRV and WP:SUSTAINED, all requirements for a showing of notability. There's still time for a lot more input, so consensus may change, but I think it's unlikely. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While GNG appears to be met (see collapsed table below), this is a biography, so we need to examine this through the lens of WP:NBIO.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Columbia College Today	? Appears to be a University publication. Unclear if this is the equivalent of a press release or if this is subject to editorial review.	~ While reliable about home institutions, per WP:RSSM, student media may be discounted during notability discussions about topics related to home institutions.	Trivial metion in a single sentence.	✘ No
Entrepreneur	This is an author profile for staff/contributing writers to Entrepreneur, not an independently written news article.	? Moot as clearly non-independent.	? Moot as clearly non-independent.	✘ No
The Daily Beast	This appears to be independently created content.	~ Per WP:DAILYBEAST, there is no consensus as to the reliability of The Daily Beast.	This definitely covers her in a greater-than-trivial way. The context of the coverage is the Musk tweets and Twitter suspension.	~ Partial
Bloomberg News	This is written by an independent news organization.	Bloomberg News is an established WP:NEWSORG	She is the focus of all of two sentences and additionally given two trivial mentions.	✘ No
Law360	Law360 appears to be independent	For sake of argument, why not?	In the full article, Lopez is trivially mentioned a single time.	✘ No
Slate	Appears to be independent.	? This reads like an WP:RSOPINION piece but does not appear to be marked as such by Slate.	Obviously about Lopez, in the context of the coverage is the Musk tweets, but not her suspension from Twitter.	? Unknown
NPR via WITF	NPR is an independent WP:NEWSORG.	NPR is an established WP:NEWSORG.	The coverage about Lopez, in the context of the Musk Tweets and Twitter suspension, passes the WP:100W rule-of-thumb.	✔ Yes
The Independent via Yahoo! News	This is an independent WP:NEWSORG.	This is an established WP:NEWSORG.	This is significant coverage of Lopez, in the context of the Musk tweets and her suspension from Twittter.	✔ Yes
The New York Times	NYT is an independent WP:NEWSORG.	NYT is an established WP:NEWSORG.	She is mentioned in passing, once.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

As the table above shows, whether or not she was covered significantly in the context of multiple events seems to hinge on the reliability of the Slate piece and whether we treat it as WP:RSOPINION or as a regular piece of WP:NEWSORG reporting. I feel like it is a bit of a stretch to say that the 2018 Slate piece covers her in the context of the same event that was her suspension from Twitter, so I'm a bit hesitant to say that this is clearly WP:BLP1E if we treat that source as reliable. After all, as WP:BLP2E correctly states, if reliable sources cover the person in the context of more than a single event, then BLP1E does not apply. She also doesn't exactly appear to be a low-profile individual, so I doubt that WP:BLP1E#2 applies to her even if we were to treat Slate's coverage as an opinion piece. Alas, the other coverage of Lopez that I could find online appears to cover her in the context of her suspension from Twitter, so looking for sources not in the article already doesn't really help clarify what to do here.

On a separate note, she has won a New York Press Club award, but I don't think that this is the sort of award that makes one pass WP:ANYBIO#1. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This piece from Institutional Investor also devotes a significant portion to Musk and Lopez: https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b19b6swblfjyvh/Inside-the-Always-Nasty-Frequently-Sexist-and-Often-Litigious-World-of-Financial-Twitter. QRep2020 (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because although she has independent in-depth coverage in mid-2023 it's all arising from the Twitter suspension. I think that puts her into WP:1E and (like so many things involving Musk) not a particularly compelling event.

It's slightly more complicated than one-event, because he maligned her twice -- the 2019/2020 articles don't seem to be about her, but about the coverage on which Musk criticised her (the Bloomberg article is paywalled so I can't see it) -- but his allegations got just passing mentions in press coverage at the time. Oblivy (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:NAUTHOR. Haven't followed the Twitter controversy, but Linette Lopez wrote a significant body of work on Occupy Wall Street. Looks like it's missing from the article so I will try to add more info if I can find time. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for greatly adding to the article. QRep2020 (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still a long, long way to go with this article, as there is so much information that is still missing, but by definition, her coverage of Tesla spanning many years, plus her coverage of Occupy Wall Street, are both widely cited and satisfy criteria #1 and #3 of WP:NAUTHOR, which says The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work.... Also easily satisfies WP:BASIC. (It's always hard to do good searches on journalists, as you have to weed through so much of their own bylines, but the more you dig, the more you find.) Cielquiparle (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update is that there is still room for expansion/improvement, but at this point I would say it's also a pass per WP:HEY. Another point is that the author actually has a large body of citations across Wikipedia (be sure to search for "Lopez, Linette" as well as "Linette Lopez" – not sure if there is an "Authorlink" bot similar to "Findlink" that takes care of this automatically but the number is large enough that it seems like a tedious update to make manually). In any case I don't think there's any doubt about her notability per WP:NAUTHOR, and there is still plenty of other secondary coverage about her media coverage that could still be added to the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article has been improved significantly. But aside from the Common Ground citation is there anything new that adds to the WP:NAUTHOR analysis? Those four factors all point to recognition by others of her body of work or contributions. One might argue that the attention she received from Musk is a backhanded complement but that seems a stretch. Oblivy (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, several secondary articles have been added which specifically discuss her coverage of Tesla, Inc. There are many, many more articles like that. Her body of articles are also widely cited in articles discussing Occupy Wall Street. And all the other citations within Wikipedia. That is sufficient for WP:NJOURNALIST, criteria #1 and #3. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth remembering that every article must still pass WP:GNG; SNGs merely establish temporary presumed notability based on certain common metrics that are believed to indicate a likely basis for notability. However, at AfD the party arguing for retention still bears the burden of demonstrating that there is substantial, in-depth coverage of the subject itself. A journalist might satisfy WP:NAUTHOR thirty times over, because they had a hand in breaking the ten biggest stories of the previous decade, but if independent sources don't cover them as a subject, it doesn't matter.

That said, if the expansion of the article is perceived as a positive indicator that such coverage can be ultimately found, then let's grant the time to bring them to bear. There's clearly a 'no consensus' result here at present anyway. But speaking for myself, I'm only going to formally change my !vote once I see detailed coverage of Lopez herself, as required by policy. This "she widely covered this", "she was instrumental in that" is all just a distraction unless RS report directly on her accomplishments and validate the significance independent of our being impressed. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For biographical articles we have WP:BASIC, which says: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. The article with its current sourcing easily satisfies this criterion. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2023 (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.