Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Feinberg

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Feinberg

[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)

Delete I again apologize for my confusion as to which tag to place on the article. As I stated on the talk page, Feinberg does seem to have a sizable Twitter following (164,000 followers as of now) and is a prolific writer for Huffpost. These two things alone do not earn her a Wikipedia page. In fact, the page is so anemic that I see little reason for its existence. Feinberg doesn't seem notable in any way. She may be a well-liked journalist or even Twitter famous, but if everyone with those qualifications got their own Wikipedia page, we would all have a lot of work to do. Some editors have attempted to add infomation regarding Feinberg's mentions from various news outlets. I don't see the validity in this argument. I especially don't see it when the sources cited are Deadspin (?), Columbia Journalism Review, Business Insider Australia (really?), and Sputnik Turkey in Turkish (already a propaganda wing of the Russian gov't, this article isn't even in English). For these reasons, I believe the article should be deleted. If Feinberg lands a huge scoop or ends up publishing this generation's equivalent of the Pentagon Papers, maybe she'll get a page. She doesn't need one now. KidAd (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a bit thin but there are numerous reliable sources discussing at least two different significant pieces of her work years apart (please see updated entry; I've removed the Sputnik source and added a number of others) and in both cases there's specific commentary on the work she did, not just the subject she was reporting on. So there's no INHERITED, SUSTAINED or BLP1E issue. I don't particularly see the need to delete this entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the substantial CJR profile came between the two pieces of reporting that got a good deal of attention (on Comey and Dorsey), so that's another independent indication of the attention to her work in general. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article does appear to satisfy WP:JOURNALIST criteria 3: "The person has created... a significant or well-known work... In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The Comey and Dorsey stories are well-known and the subject of and referenced in many other articles. Sdegennaro (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was not transcluded into an AfD log until 03:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC). — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: appears to have enough reliable independent coverage. PamD 09:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, see [1] [2] [3]. wumbolo ^^^ 09:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has numerous reliable sources - Washington Post, BBC, Forbes "30 under 30 2019". Circlecubed (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I apologize for adding the Sputnik reference - it was the second time I was removing the Speedy Deletion notice, and I was about to board a plane, so added the first references that came up. I don't apologize for it not being in English, though - it is clear policy that non-English sources are acceptable. (And yes, really, Business Insider Australia! What on earth is wrong with that?) I removed the Speedy Delete twice as it was clear to me from a quick google search that her work has on more than one occasion been "the primary subject of... multiple independent periodical articles", and that she therefore meets WP:JOURNALIST. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [4] No current consensus on Business Insider, but the website has been questioned as to reliability. I am not familiar with the Australian edition; it just came off as even more obscure to me. I direct no hate towards Australia or their collective journalistic pursuits. KidAd (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as a notable journalist well worth a page. --Lockley (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is about a notable journalist with plenty of decent sources. Tomclarke (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable. Lots of RS coverage, including coverage that characterizes her as a notable figure (e.g. The 2019 Forbes 30 Under 30 list, a CJR profile). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Piles of good sourcing. Blythwood (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage of her in the Columbia Journalism Review is very detailed and exactly the type of thing that establishes the notability of a journalist. The Washington Post coverage of her interview of Jack Dorsey is also a solid reference. Some of the other references are weaker but taken as a whole, the references now in the article show that she is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:01, 27 January 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.