Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliza Landes: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:52, 7 March 2024

Aliza Landes

[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)

Fails WP:NBIO. Of the listed reliable sources, the most she gets is three paragraphs in the Tablet Magazine one. The i24 video source has her answering two questions, partially but not wholly about a project she was involved in. The Atlantic is a single sentence plus a paragraph quoted from Tablet (and thus adds nothing for notability per WP:NBASIC.) Forum (which may or may not be a reliable source) has one paragraph plus on sentence on her. Sources regarding the Wall Street Journal article mention her in passing (or, in one used the article author re-added, is on screen for a fraction of a second while showing an image of one of the other sources.) Coverage of the WSJ article here is problematic, as our article's subject had no known involvement in the WSJ article -- the link is that she is pals with a co-author of said article, with no involvement by her in the article having been shown. (Creator of this article has been highly focused on that WSJ article, as can be seen by their work on UNRWA October 7 controversy, their creation of a now-deleted attack page on the co-author of the article and of a scheduled-to-be-deleted category about the co-author.) Further sources listed are not independent. I'm not finding anything better through Google including Google News. Newspapers.com search brings up three paragraphs (one about her, two quotes) in a 37-paragraph story on the IDF's social media in the St. Louis Jewish Light and her being quoted as part of 2 paragraphs from a much larger Boston Globe story about a Jewish school she was attending when she was 14 (and I have not sought to verify that the Globe quote is not from a different person of similar name, because it's inconsequential in any case.) Nat Gertler (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your characterization of the Carrie Keller-Lynn as an "attack page" is disparagement for which I ask you to apologize. I was writing about a major controversy in journalism, where front-page articles in US newspapers of record appear to be nearly lifted from the Israeli State and where new journalists with close connections to the Israeli State suddently appear as authors. I did not create the controversy, I only documented it. You have in the past accused me of WP:SYNTH; I did not say that Keller-Lynn and Landes' relationship is indicative of any bias in the WSJ article, but rather I documented the significant coverage of that issue being raised, among others, at the heart of the controversy about the article.

Secondly, you accusation that I am "highly focused" on the UNRWA October 7 controversy article...which may or may not be coded disparagement, implying that I am obsessed. Yes, I have made many edits, and frankly gone in circles are because of non-stop removals by you and another editor who appear to have a political agenda to remove any content which might cast a light on the influence of the Israeli State in the US press, however I do not accuse you of that as I don't know exactly what your motivation is. The reasons given are usually pedantic. I spend literally hours and hours, gathering the exact quotations and permutations of RS to support points that were clearly supported already by other RS and WP:COMMONSENSE. I have done so despite many of the reasons given not even being WP policy. I guess I did a good enough job finding the exact right references that now you are submitting the article for deletion.

Why not lay off the disparagement and simply ask people to decide whether the subject of the article is notable or not?

Be aware I will not back down and refrain from adding well-supported, balanced and truthful material about Israel/Palestine simply because of non-stop attempts to delete information that doesn't happen to reflect positively on the Israeli State.Keizers (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Positive or not, this person hardly has anything covering her, and I'm unsure what the claim to notability is. Running a social medial presence is rather routine these days. Even in 2009 it was somewhat routine. Oaktree b (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Cryptocurrency, Military, Advertising, Israel, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Atlantic article is fine (rather briefly mentions her), not strictly about this individual. Rest are non-RS or not even about this person. Founding a social media policy is fine, it's nothing notable. I don't see any additional coverage about this person. Delete for unclear notability and no sourcing regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, including per WP:NOT and WP:BLP policy, e.g. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives This article includes a substantial "UNRWA/Wall Street Journal controversy" section with what seems to be an WP:UNDUE focus on a report of a screenshot of a negative tweet about the subject that is extensively quoted in the article, and another quote of reported sensationalism about the subject, and a summary of a report about more tweet comments. While some of this can be fixed by editing, the minimal sourcing available to support notability as well as a neutral and balanced article according to WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BLP policies support deletion at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 *<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women|list of Women-related deletion discussions]]. '''[[User:Wcquidditch|<span style="color:red">WC</span>''<span style="color:#999933">Quidditch</span>'']]''' [[User talk:Wcquidditch|<span style="color:red">☎</span>]] [[Special:Contribs/Wcquidditch|<span style="color:#999933">✎</span>]] 00:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)</small>
 * '''Delete''': The Atlantic article is fine (rather briefly mentions her), not strictly about this individual. Rest are non-RS or not even about this person. Founding a social media policy is fine, it's nothing notable. I don't see any additional coverage about this person. Delete for unclear notability and no sourcing regardless. [[User:Oaktree b|Oaktree b]] ([[User talk:Oaktree b|talk]]) 02:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC) <!--VCB Oaktree b-->
+* '''Delete''', including per [[WP:NOT]] and [[WP:BLP]] policy, e.g. {{tq|Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives}} This article includes a substantial "UNRWA/Wall Street Journal controversy" section with what seems to be an [[WP:UNDUE]] focus on a report of a screenshot of a negative tweet about the subject that is extensively quoted in the article, and another quote of reported [[WP:SENSATIONAL|sensationalism]] about the subject, and a summary of a report about more tweet comments. While some of this can be fixed by editing, the minimal sourcing available to support [[WP:N|notability]] as well as a [[WP:WHYN|neutral and balanced]] article according to [[WP:NOTSCANDAL]], [[WP:NOTNEWS]], and [[WP:BLP]] policies support deletion at this time. [[User:Beccaynr|Beccaynr]] ([[User talk:Beccaynr|talk]]) 06:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)