Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan McArdle

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 -- Y not? 19:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Megan McArdle[edit]

This articles makes several claims of notability, but none of them qualify the subject for an article under the terms of WP:BIO. She is a writer for a notable publication, but that is not a qualification. Efforts have been made to prove notability: one source has been found, a online article about her. However, the article is from an organization whose mission "is to find and publish young and undiscovered conservative and libertarian writers". Additionally, her blog tied for an online award for Best Female Authored Blog in 2003 at a site entitled "The Weblog Awards". I have not been able to determine the notability of these awards, but they are not to be confused with the notable "Webby Awards".

In summary, despite these minor online whiffs, the subject of this article is non-notable. Spike Wilbury 15:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I think she is borderline notable. Perhaps in a couple of years she will become more notable, write a book or something. I could, however, be easily persuaded. The Economist does not give bylines to its editors; I think this is one area Wikipedia could fill a void, by detailing who, exactly, writes for them. But that's my own desire, and I can't back it up with any policy or guideline. --David Shankbone 16:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe someday. --Evb-wiki 18:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm aware that there is no clear-cut case to be made for Wikipedia notability, given the guidelines. However, it seems that in practice Wikipedia standards for journalists and bloggers are broader than the guidelines would suggest. Let me point to the examples of the entries on William Arkin, Rosa Brooks and Kevin Drum - none, as far as I can tell, satisfy the restrictive standards of WP:BIO (all happen to be left-wing as well, but I'm not trying to make a political point), though all have a fairly notable online and/or journalistic presence. If those three articles, and others like them, can exist, I don't see why this one can't remain as well. Korny O'Near 16:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do respect your position here, but it is a logical fallacy to point to other articles' existence as proof that yours should exist. Articles need to be evaluated on their own merit. If those articles you mention are non-notable, then they should be deleted also. As to the notability of McArdle, we simply can't take your word for it; that's why we have notability tests like WP:BIO. If she is notable, then there should be multiple, independent sources backing up the claim. --Spike Wilbury 16:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree half-heartedly with what Spike writes. But I also want to point out the inverse: just because certain articles or categories of articles do not exist doesn't mean they shouldn't. I don't know if that is particularly relevant to this discussion or not, but it's an argument that is often raised elsewhere. --David Shankbone 17:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now. I should have made myself clearer at Talk:Megan McArdle: I have only started looking for info. I will continue to do so, but it will take me some time, probably several weeks. (It's not one of my high priorities.)

Comment: As I said at that talk page, it seems to me that Megan McArdle the person does not currently meet Wikipedia's notability standards, but janegalt.net may be notable enough. (I contend that second-tier political blogs like this one probably should get Wikipedia coverage.) If that turns out to be the case, we should rename the article.

Meanwhile, please give me time to finish my inquiries. CWC 18:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. I did understand that you have started to look for info, I just don't believe you'll find any. You managed to dig up that her blog tied for some award in 2003 that itself is not notable - so that does nothing for the article. I actually tried in earnest to find sources proving her notability, including a LexisNexis search that accesses periodicals and journals. Mentions of her here and there, but no articles about her as specified in WP:BIO. There as been plenty of time to prove notability, and it hasn't been accomplished. If you find sources sometime in the indeterminate future, you can recreate the article. I will even give restore the old article for you so you can add your sources. --Spike Wilbury 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I was right: Megan-McArdle-the-person does not currently meet WP:BIO.

Since I'm not going to be given time to make a proper investigation, I just spent an hour searching for libertarian blog awards. I didn't find any, but that doesn't mean they don't exist — my Google-fu is far from perfect. So on present information, McArdle's blog does not meet the current version of WP:WEB.

However, WP:WEB is only a guideline. Moreover, it is now clear to me that it is quite a defective guideline when applied to blogs. (There's a catch-22: blogs don't count as a RSes about other blogs, but the MSM hates giving blogs good publicity for some obvious reason ...) This is just the sort of blog that Wikipedia should have a short article about: not one of the top ten, but one whose posts make a big impact (especially when Insty points to them.)

So I contend that we should have an article named Asymmetrical Information (blog). FWIW, I seem to recall that the GFDL encourages us to rename and edit the current article rather than delete Megan McArdle and create the new one. Cheers, CWC 17:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. On what grounds to you propose that her blog is notable? Other than tying for a dubious award in 2003? I can't imagine that Ms. McArdle thinks that highly of the award since she doesn't advertise it on her site as most Web sites who win notable awards seem to do. Her posts seem to get a fair number of "comments" but that only means that she has a little gaggle of followers. When I click through to some of the Libertarian sites and blogs that she links to, I don't find that they link back to her site. So their organizations do not consider her blog notable. What other measures are there? I'm not against the idea of creating an article about her blog, but I'm still not convinced that it even has a claim to notability, let alone solid proof. --Spike Wilbury 19:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:08, 7 June 2007 (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.