2409:, as is the presumption of the default for AFD, because in addition to Barnett appearing notable, at an absolute minimum to the community where she exists, for the reasons already given by other editors, the continued refined specificity over what may or may not make her notable "in the future" is approaching the absurd. She's written a body of journalistic work for which she has been recognized; she's written a book which, while containing details of her own life, also makes points about the general health issues she describes and has been both been reviewed and the subject of media coverage; and she's recognizable in her field. To now say "well, if she wins the Nobel Prize then perhaps she'd be notable" is both a stretch for all other notability and a tautology. To call Barnett "notable" is not an unreasonable conclusion to reach and, considering the twin defaults of "to keep the article" and "deletion is a last resort," we've clearly passed that point in favor of moving on with improving the article instead of finding more possible checkmarks Barnett could theoretically try to tick.
1096:. Despite the denials, there is definitely some refbombing going on here. Considering that the lead of an article is meant to be a summary of the article body (and as such, referencing is not normally expected in the lead at all), and considering that this version was meant to address the problems from the first AfD, then why does the simple statement that Barnett is known for pioneering crowdsourced journalism need four citations in the lead? Two of those are Barnett talking about herself, so we can hardly consider those as verifying she is a pioneer, one has a passing mention of her as influential in Seattle, and the fourth,
2484:(mean-spirited) story about disabled bus riders, initiating unwarranted suspicions and rumors about black activists at the BLM protests, and I suppose the wine stealing incident. On the other hand she has over two decades of legitimate journalism and some solid reporting. If a reliable source has actually called her a "pioneer", it should be in the article. However she recently pointed out that all Seattle journalists "know each other", so I'm skeptical about that reliability.
2069:, as "the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself". The simplest thing is to keep the bio article, and allow local consensus to deal with whether to maintain a bio article with a section about the memior, or move to a book article with a biographical subsection, or split into two articles. All questions that are outside the scope of AfD. Continuing to split hairs over notability is moving into
749:
Barnett unique contribution. No reliable sources dispute it. If all reporters doing their job get just as many credits for scoops from other journalists, then it would be easy to cite them and show that
Barnett is not unique. How many independent journalists who rely on crowdfunding after the waves of newspaper layoffs regularly get credits for breaking stories that the major media missed? Citing examples of them would prove Barnett is not notable. --
2104:(b) the book must be significant and well-known. I'm not seeing that this meets part B. If it gets short-listed for the Pulitzer Prize, the Nobel Prize, the National Book Award, the Man Booker Prize, etc., we might have a more solid case. But we need some objective measurement of it being "well known" (separate from review quantity which is covered in clause A of criteria 3), and not just, "I've read it". And, as noted by others
361:
happening here: most if not all of the articles linked are directly about Ms
Barnett or some means by which she herself had an impact. Ms Barnett's page as it currently stands documents founding a media organization, instigating a small reform in the Seattle PD, a public confrontation with radio personalities, and a few other public events of note to at least some. All of these are far beyond mere mention of a byline.
2124:
author is not notable while the book is since they are one and the same. Outside of pseudonym, ghostwriting, and anonymous works, has there ever been a nonfiction autobiography of notoriety that saw its author not be notable? I would say it’s inherently paradoxical and absolutely violating the spirit of the standards of NAUTHOR and NBOOK for an overly strict textual reading.
1242:"interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability. The material provided to the interview by the interviewer and the publication is secondary. The material provided by the interviewee may be primary, if the interviewee is speaking about his own life, or may be secondary, if the interviewee is recognized as an expert on the subject being reported."
1079:. Ms. Barnett is an accomplished journalist in several Seattle publications as a reporter and as an editor, is a (soon-to-be) published author with a major publishing company, and currently produces independent reporting that is picked up by many mainstream sources. Irrespective of how well-written this article is, its subject merits a Knowledge article of her own.
446:"identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Knowledge may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Knowledge."
1045:
have no power whatsoever to decide on editorial content beyond their abilities as ordinary editors. You have demonstrated yourself that there is no "standardized procedure (rule-following) that dictates the execution of most or all processes" here. You moved this article out of draft space without going through the
2445:
come out and some coverage to appear (that's why it was left as a draft and not 100% deleted); I did and other editors said that it's still too soon. One editor comments that Kirkus isn't notable enough and maybe an NYT review would be sufficient, then the NYT review shows up and that's not good enough either.
412:), albeit not a guideline, that presumes inherent notability for any person who has held flag rank in any nation is notable. If you have an issue with that you should nominate the article in question for deletion. This isn't really the correct forum to discuss the merits of Raymond Ayres, though. Please see
372:, whose highest achievement listed in his five-sentence Knowledge page seems to be executive officer of the US Marine Band for some period beginning in the late 1960s. This is great! He should have a Knowledge page! But if he should, then it is respectful to apply a similar standard of notability to others.
478:, and I could keep going—this is not a difficult exercise. Are these sufficient to establish a standard for what is currently treated as notability? If these pages are not notable, does the treatment of Ms Barnett indicate that it's time for a cleaning-of-house for journalist pages throughout the site?
2123:
I find it somewhat ridiculous that, where authorship is known and the book is an autobiography, notability of the work is not also notability of the author. If the book is notable for the work contained within and the work is the actual life experience of the author, it’s impossible to argue that the
1921:
You mean other than the reasons already posted above for having an article about the author rather than the book? If another editor !votes keep for the same reasons, are you going to ask them to re-post why we'd prefer to cover the book under an article about the author, rather than have a stub about
1325:
is only an essay, not policy, but it very much agrees with everything I've said. It's entirely legitimate to judge the interview cited here as adding weight to
Barnett's notability. How much? It depends, but when you add that to the long list of other evidence, coming from multiple lines of reasoning
1258:, are cited in my !vote. Others have pointed out which sources they think meet the bar. If you find those unconvincing, that's totally fine. But all these red herrings do not help anybody reach a consensus for either keep or delete; it only muddies the waters. All of what I'm saying is spelled out in
1044:
The claim that
Knowledge is not a bureaucracy deserves a lot of criticism, but not for the reasons in that essay which has no widespread support in the community. It is self-evidently wrong. As far as editing rights are concerned, there are no formal division of powers or heirarchy. Administrators
943:
are all the same story: her getting kicked off nextdoor for violating their TOS. You can add 6 more refs for that story and ill still say its underwhelming. A lot of links to the same unimportant story doesnt make the story important, nor does it make a non-notable subject notable simply by volume.
635:
Anyway, please cite which of the, in your words, "large influx of SPAs and long-term sleeper accounts" were identified as sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or otherwise had the !votes struck as invalid or canvassed. I can't find any evidence that anybody's contribution to the previous AfD was deemed invalid,
2444:
I also get a sense of moving the goal posts: a cradle-to-now bio did turn up, but it was deemed not sufficient for notability because she was involved, or the source wasn't deemed good enough. The delete discussion last time concluded that the article was too soon and we should wait for the book to
1219:
The fact that an individual was interviews and it was published adds weight evidence of notability. A long, in-depth interview in a major publication adds a lot of weight. A short capsule interview, a single line quoted in an article about a different topic, in a minor publication adds only a little
1211:
it is a primary source. If you think an interview in an independent publication is self-published the same as anybody's personal MySpace or
Twitter, then you go to that publication and make them publish an interview with yourself. Make them publish every word you say, unedited. It doesn't work, does
2108:
establishes whether a book, not the author, is notable. Erica
Barnett is a human being, and not a book, so is covered by NAUTHOR instead. This is a fundamental distinction since notability of a BLP requires biographical detail beyond what would be found in editorial coverage of a book and books may
1862:
is the wikipedia notability guideline essay for books and is the accepted standard. When a book is notable, which
Barnetts'book actually meets because it has two or more independent reviews, which Kirkus deffo is regarded as being enough on its own, then the author is generally accepted as standard
1030:
Knowledge has millions of articles and a high percentage of them are poor quality. Probably tens of thousands would get deleted if tested at AFD. You cannot judge our standards by comparing to random articles. None of those articles has been through any kind of serious quality review, and two of
748:
As with last time, if the list of scoops she is credit with by other major media are not unique, then why can no one cite examples of any other
Seattle reporters who have similar credits? The examples are there in the article, and the last AfD. The article cites expert reliable sources who call out
2428:
I'm not going to re-cite the examples of notable events, interviews, &c already given. I created this page because I think the subject is about as notable as the typical journalist on
Knowledge. I think enough people are going to be curious about the subject that they'll type her name into a
1808:
Why do you have to badger everyone who dares to disagree with you? You already posted your arguments for why you think reviews at Kirkus and
Publishers Weekly aren't sufficient. Everyone read what you said. Obviously what you said wasn't convincing for this editor. Unless you have something new to
1344:
You can shout quotes at me all you like but it won't make them mean what you want them to mean. "Material provided by the interviewer" means something other than his questions and her answers. Barnett talking about herself is unarguably primary and INTERVIEW says exactly that, you just quoted it
1100:
article, I can't access. Searching for "Barnett" on that site gets "bot blocked" so something dodgy is going on there. If anyone thinks that article does actually have something substantial, please e-mail it to me. On interviewes, we definitely consider those primary, non-independent sources as
995:
went only a few paragraphs before a decision to keep was made because her one book was reviewed by sources comparable to those that reviewed _Quitter_. Other articles cited above have comparable content, meaning less than this page. The reason this discussion is so long is that editors are, as you
733:
This looks no different than the last time. She has some bylines and is mentioned in a few stories, but nothing that clears any notability hurdle in my opinion. The cited reviews of her book strike me as fairly trivial and i disagree that her reporting is in any way a "unique contribution to her
375:
I recognize that there is no objective notability standard, but that is perhaps the point of a broad-interest site that covers both the history of the US Marine Band and figures in Seattle politics. But I do get the sense that the notability standard is being ratcheted up beyond the level of other
360:
Regarding (2), I had to look up the term "REFBOMB" (a term which doesn't explicitly appear on the deletion discussion page): "a journalist might try to document every individual piece of work they ever produced for their employer, often citing that work's existence to itself". That's not what the
2434:
I'm still concerned by the standards being cited by the delete votes. Some editors have required cradle-to-now bios, nomination for a Nobel Prize, and comparison to pages about other journalists only when those pages have been featured articles. If these were the real standards for Knowledge, it
1235:
be cited for a fact if: 1) the individual asserts about themselves, or 2) in which the individual is a widely recognized expert. But nobody is questioning any factual claims by Barnett about herself or her area of expertise in any interviews, and no facts in the article cite her quotes alone as a
1206:
I would argue that the work of this discussion here is obscured filling up the page with unfounded accusations of canvassing from the previously closed AfD, repeatedly raising the non-issue of refbombing as if it had any bearing on notability, asserting an interview is a primary source, having to
889:
There's something wrong when the established Knowledge standard for possibly hundreds of journalists is a good career, while for this page it has become "multiple ... at length biographical essays or reportings about her life from cradle ... to current" (and, evidently, from sources editors don't
349:
Chetsford, given your summary, I have to ask: is all this because you feel that Ms Barnett called you an asshole? If so, perhaps an apology can be arranged. Otherwise, there seems to be a conflation of two things: (1) the procedural errors Ms Barnett made when the page was first generated and she
1281:
I don't know how you can cite that from INTERVIEW and come to exactly the opposite conclusion from what it actually says. If the interviewee is talking about herself it is PRIMARY and does not add to her notability. If she is talking about something else, and she is a recognised expert in that
631:
It is true that the number of times *other journalist* have given Barnett credit is quite large. It wouldn't be necessary to have to enumerate them all here if we didn't have editors denying her unique contribution. Denying that she is unique in Seattle media, that there are no other independent
1843:
By my tally, both your comment count and word count eclipse mine here, Dennis, the latter by a factor of three. Indeed, the giant wall of text in the middle of the page is largely a tête-à-tête between you and Spinning Spark. And yet I don't consider you to be badgering anyone. I celebrate your
965:
to advance suggestions about fundamental changes to our notability policies. In general, we can't make changes to policy in an AfD discussion, however, Village Pump would be a great place to explore possible changes to policy that would make this BLP policy compliant if it is unable to achieve
2483:
Unflattering content is not vandalism in and of itself. Barnett has several documented incidents of questionable ethics: The Atlantic incident, taking quotes out of context on the Nextdoor.com story (which is frustrating because it simply invalidates her premise and helps her detractors), her
2211:
create an article on something doesn't mean we must: we often cover the content in a different context that serves the reader better. We know there will be at least one article on the author and the book. To go on and on debating notability as if the outcome will be no coverage of Barnett on
1049:
process, the very process the draft space was designed to support. Nobody stopped you doing that or banned you from the site afterwards. Of course, you wouldn't have half the problems you have now if you had gone through the process and let someone else review it first before moving.
2450:
She did some interesting things that third parties wrote about, and wrote a book with a very well-regarded publisher. Be it for love or hate, lots of people think she's worth knowing about. That's more than enough to take up one row in Knowledge database tables of millions of rows.
1000:
for people who would like to change the standard to "at length biographical essays" or other ad hoc rules that do not match existing Knowledge standards for journalists—in some of the above cases satisfied by as little as one book or a few notable articles—which this page easily falls
2439:? I don't know if Ms Barnett will win a Nobel for _Quitter_, but that Dr Strickland's page spent a public news cycle as an embarrassment to Knowledge shows that we can't raise the bar anywhere near that high, especially on an ad hoc basis, especially on an ad hoc basis for a woman.
632:
journalists who are so frequently credited with scoops by major organizations. You could find people of similar stature in other cities, I suppose, but I would expect such independent journalists who get credited with scoops as often as Barnett also meet the notability criteria.
291:
Note to closer: during the last AfD, the subject of this article aggressively lobbied her Twitter followers to aid her efforts on Knowledge by confronting the "assholes" who had nominated it for deletion. This resulted in a large influx of SPAs and long-term sleeper accounts.
784:
that one means of deciding notability is to compare with other stable, not-controversial pages (here I'll say more than five years old). Here are ten more local journalist pages to add to the six above which, unlike this page, list no claims to fame other than their reporting
2478:, some impartial admins should keep tabs on this page. Ideally admins not in the Seattle area, perhaps from the UK. It would be problematic for her to own this page, which is simply in her character. And it would be problematic for her many haters to own this page as well.
991:, I 100% agree with you. There is a standard, established by literally decades of Wikipages about journalists. I hope those commenting have looked at some of the samples above to see what this standard, which is well-established, looks like. For example, the discussion on
936:. All of them (except perhaps the last, i hit a paywall) simply say that the story was first reported by Barnett, which is exactly what reporters do. Saying she is notable for breaking a story is like saying a bus driver is notable for driving a bus. The first three
519:, given that Barnett has made a unique contribution to her field, pioneering independent local journalism in the wake of mass layoffs in the newspaper industry. Numerous credits for scoops by major newspapers, TV, and other news media in Seattle verify this. See
1391:
It's saying that if you're interviewed at all, if an interview of you is published at all, you have some notability. In simple terms: "interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." Not merely the parts contributed by the interviewer;
618:
Again, that's false. I didn't cite Barnett's bylines on that point. I cite articles by *other journalists*, where they call out Barnett by name to credit her with breaking a story that the other large organizations, major TV, newspaper, and internet media,
457:
Besides the list already presented, it is easy to find journalists whose pages, unlike the one under discussion here, only discuss their reporting career, have been stable for years, and have never been flagged for deletion. I took a few minutes and found
449:
My read is that this is because GNG is fundamentally subjective, and comparison to other pages can help to calibrate it and break a "yes it is"/"no it isn't" deadlock. In the previous deletion discussion, I had pointed to Armenian journalists such as
2282:. It is standard for newly published works to take a bit of time to make their way into library collections, get properly processed by each library, and then each library does their regular batch upload to WorldCat. Check back in a month or two.
1215:
Independent organizations select whom to interview; interviewees don't select themselves. Interviewees don't control how much space is devoted to quotations of themselves, or which questions are asked, or which questions and answers are edited
1326:-- impact on public events, unique contribution to her field, author of a notable book -- you'd really have to have a personal idiosyncratic desire to prevent Erica Barnett from having a bio on Knowledge to insist the only choice is to delete.
1924:
Bludgeoning. AGF includes assuming that when an editor posts something at the bottom of a discussion, they did their due diligence, having read prior comments, in order to add to the ongoing discussion rather than repeat points already made.
996:
note, attempting to develop a new standard for only this page that does not match Knowledge's well-established precedent for journalist pages such as the 16 stable and established example pages I've provided. Thank you for pointing out
879:
I'd love to see some engagement with this or other proposed means of making the fundamentally subjective question of notability more objective. How can we apply the same standard used for stable pages throughout Knowledge with this
636:
or blocked for multiple accounts, or canvassing. Casting aspersions in this way without evidence is misleading. Most editors will read your accusation and accept it on good faith, but they shouldn't. You have cited no evidence. --
431:
If (1), the early procedural mess, is not an issue, then I suggest that it not be mentioned. If it is an issue, I suggest explaining exactly how the events from last year discussed in the above blog affect the deletion discussion.
1626:
provide significant independent coverage of the subject in reliable sources. They do refer to the same incident, yes, but as a prominent reporter who is not primarily known for this one incident, she clearly doesn't fall under
588:- As I said in the original discussion, the fact she has "numerous credits (i.e. bylines)" and that she "pioneered independent local journalism" need to be connected by reliable sources making this unambiguous assertion. It is
394:- Yikes, I didn't realize she did! I thought it was directed towards another editor. Anyway, no hard feelings on my part. I've been semi-active AFD'ing autobiographies and have been called worse. It comes with the territory in
1635:
is a new source I found; once the article starts talking about her getting sued it's clear that it is about her rather than simply citing her. The book reviews combine with all those sources to push her over the bar IMO. --
1113:. So as it stands, despite multiple references, the claim that Barnett is a "pioneer" remains unverified. All that has been established about Barnett is that she is a busy journalist, but that does not make her notable,
1312:"The material provided to the interview by the interviewer and the publication is secondary. The material provided by the interviewee may be primary, if the interviewee is speaking about his own life, or may be secondary"
485:
beyond what Knowledge requires. I'm hoping that comparison with other pages that are stable and have never been marked for deletion may give us some way to more objectively handle the subjective question of notability.
364:
In the previous discussion, one advocate for deletion wrote "There has to be multiple (two minimum; three is better), at length biographical essays or reportings about her life from cradle (or near cradle) to current".
2489:
In my humble opinion, her ego and immaturity are her worst enemies, which is worth mentioning because those enemies have already edited this page. At any rate, this has gone on long enough and has plenty of Keep votes
1203:, so citations were dutifully provided, as requested. Now the very citations we were asked to give are "refbombing"? Which somehow is a reason to delete an article? Damned if you do, damned if you don't, am I right?
357:. Since November 2019, it seems Ms Barnett has held back from further commissions of COI edits. I'm unclear on the extent to which Knowledge policy is to remove pages of public figures who violate Knowledge rules.
224:
1464:
930:
524:
83:
1812:
Anyway, you're right. Is not a policy. You win that one, at least against the non-existent point of view that "kirkus = keep". Good one. Please don't do this with the next !vote and the next and the next.
1885:
Hi Davidstewartharvey. I've commented or requested clarification in response to four of the eleven !votes here and, by wordcount, am only the third most prolific commenter in this discussion. That's not
330:
543:. We don't want separate stub articles about both Barnett and her memoir; it's usually best to gather someone's bio and their works in a single umbrella article and spawn sub-articles judiciously (per
1318:"the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent and contributes to the claim that the subject has meet the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline."
1175:
That is all very true, but what refbombing does do is obscure the refs (if any) that actually do support notability and discuss the subject in depth. Are there any? So far, I'm not seeing it.
2037:
934:
528:
1632:
1578:, but that subject's book was nominated for a literary award...and also was not a memoir (subjective, but I think it matters in this case, where this article is still overly promotional).
1035:
list. Those have been carefully reviewed and are a true representation of our standards. If you have some sensible comparisons there, I might start to listen, but until then it is just
2382:. A published memoir from a major publisher, a career in journalism substantiated by reliable sources. Maybe she wasn't notable when this article was created, but she certainly is now.
2216:
is for. Keeping what we have, expanding the section on the book with the new sources we are now seeing, and then deciding what to do with it once it takes shape is the essence of what
2328:
No, it's a case of this metric being completely irrelevant. Viking is a major publisher, that's the yardstick Knowledge has always used, not counting transitory library holdings.
1806:. Which is a guideline, not a policy, and nobody claimed it was. This "oh that's not a policy" stuff is a strawman, with no actual point behind it. Other than to draw out a debate.
576:
and elsewhere) that the content of a Q&A style interview is not independent, regardless of the source in which it's published. I apologize for any confusion my wording caused.
435:
Regarding (2), notability: Chetsford, I was unaware of the military guideline, though even without that, I stand by my stated opinion that it's a great page and should stand. The
1554:- A second published book would make this a nonissue. It will also be a nonissue if, once her book is published, it becomes a bestseller, or is reviewed in multiple RS, such as
1263:
1308:"An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability."
2056:
1259:
2145:
Here Here! This discussion has happened on other AFD's of authors - an author must be notable if we recognise that the book is notable, especially when its an autobiography.
1504:
Stop it with the walls of text, please. Nobody reads them. Instead, make concise statements about whether or not this person is notable based on our policies and guidelines.
553:
It's false to say bythesound.net is not independent. It's not owned, controlled by, or beholden to Barnett. Interviews definitely contribute weight to a bio's notability. --
572:
Sorry, to clarify, bythesound.net, while not RS, is indeed Independent. My reference to the interview not being independent is on the basis of our longstanding consensus (
267:. The article was recreated with the rationale that a "full-length interview" now exists. That interview is a Q&A style interview on something called "bythesound.net.
218:
693:
310:
2100:- does not. Per point 3 in NAUTHOR, there is a two-part test: (a) the book must have received multiple independent reviews or been turned into a TV series, film, etc.,
624:
is entirely beside the point here. Refbombing is a style issue, where the average reader isn't helped by seeing 4 or more footnotes after each sentence. If this were a
78:
1316:
It goes on to describe how some trivial interviews add little to notability, contrasted with serious interviews by respected media, meaning, exactly as I just said,
177:
1867:. At the nd of the day the admin will decide who has put the most compelling vote against wikipedia criteria, and not one person challenging every editors opinion.
353:
These shouldn't have bearing on each other. For readers not familiar with (1), the procedural situation, a Wikipedian wrote up the entire incident in a blog post:
1574:
are RS, but perhaps not enough). She seems to be a fine reporter, but I don't see enough RS coverage of her right now. I started an article similar to this one,
2131:
2191:. We already have an article in front of us, and even if both book and author meet notability (!votes are split), we probably don't yet want two articles (see
184:
2005:
890:
brush off as not established enough). No matter how well-meaning the motivations of the editors may be, it's hard to distinguish ratcheted-up standards from
673:
52:. There is an emerging consensus that since the subject has now had a book professionally published during the debate, earlier arguments carry less weight.
903:
I didn't add more references or pull lines from the reviews because I was trying to satisfy the barrage of accusations of refbombing and puffery. Half the
124:
1469:
109:
1907:? Thanks so much, in advance, for your willingness in helping me better understand your opinion so I can evaluate, calibrate and reflect on my own.
582:
Barnett has made a unique contribution to her field, pioneering independent local journalism in the wake of mass layoffs in the newspaper industry
959:"I'd love to see some engagement with this or other proposed means of making the fundamentally subjective question of notability more objective."
1844:
enthusiasm at participating in this discursive, consensus-building process. Thank you for your contributions and intense passion on this topic!
1624:
941:
513:
870:
exercise. Of course, there are journalists who have far longer résumés, but being in the middle of the pack would indicate keep and not delete.
463:
2228:, not a mere guideline like all these other rules we're throwing around. When we say deletion is a last resort, that comes out of the policy;
2435:
would have thousands and not millions of pages. Remember Donna Strickland, who was deemed not sufficiently notable for Knowledge until she
628:
nomination discussion, refbombing could be a legitimate style problem. We don't delete articles because "too many citations". That's absurd.
592:
for us to say "if A, then B". No quantity of bylines by themselves is proof she "pioneered independent local journalism". This is where the
1695:
1647:
1460:"Reporter’s Nextdoor account suspended temporarily after she shares user comments from forum involving Seattle Police chief (geekwire.com)"
573:
467:
376:
pages because of the procedural issues or name-calling in (1), and I don't see how Knowledge guidelines indicate that this is appropriate.
350:
overreacted to BLP-inappropriate edits, and (2) the question of whether she is notable enough to merit an entry in the Knowledge database.
150:
145:
2183:
596:
on which this article is based comes in ---- hundreds of bylines in which she's simply reporting on some thing or another but which don't
2436:
926:
520:
259:. It was observed that this person, being a working journalist, has generated a great many bylines which - for a journalist - amount to
154:
1109:. While interviews are not unusable as sources, they do not establish notability, and they cannot be used for establishing a person's
932:
526:
2041:
1454:- since no one else has replied, I'll offer it. I would just caveat this by noting that I am the one who nominated this for deletion.
2499:
2491:
2460:
2418:
2401:
2364:
2343:
2319:
2297:
2259:
2245:
2168:
2154:
2139:
2135:
2118:
2082:
2045:
2017:
1966:
1952:
1934:
1916:
1876:
1853:
1822:
1793:
1759:
1723:
1705:
1675:
1657:
1612:
1587:
1546:
1519:
1482:
1442:
1405:
1380:
1356:
1338:
1297:
1275:
1186:
1170:
1124:
1088:
1061:
1020:
975:
953:
916:
758:
743:
725:
705:
685:
660:
645:
613:
562:
495:
425:
385:
342:
322:
301:
137:
62:
1700:
1684:
Ah, I see. Whether a source is currently being used in the article or not doesn't change the subject's notability, of course. --
1652:
1542:
454:, whose page is more sparse than the one we are discussing, and which none of the readers of that thread flagged as not notable.
60:
928:
522:
1046:
239:
104:
97:
17:
2159:
Thanks for this information. So we can better understand the context of these AfDs, could you provide links to three or four?
907:
votes are that there is too much information and praise on the page; half are that there isn't enough information and praise.
1899:
In any case, if you're open to continuing an informative discussion, I was hoping you could clarify something else. You cite
206:
2203:
had two notable works, it's usually better to have umbrella article on the creator rather than two stubs on the works. The
1231:, or only reliable as assertion of fact about the speaker. It is this sense in which an interview is a primary source and
2026:
If more discerning sources who review the book mean that the book and by extension author are more notable, perhaps this
2150:
1872:
540:
2355:
I'm not familiar with a policy that says a book by a major publisher establishes the author of that book's notability.
2060:
1772:
which makes her notable, as per previous afd's regarding notability of authors, and the other refs are enough to pass
1538:
1032:
701:
681:
621:
118:
114:
1031:
them are tagged for notability issues. If you want to make comparisons with other articles, pick something from the
354:
2000:
as the book also needs to be "significant or well-known" (from point no. 3), i do not see this being the case with
1738:
1493:
1036:
781:
436:
413:
1236:
source. And even if they did, AfD is not cleanup, and it's irrelevant to an AfD discussion. Might want to re-read
402:"There's something wrong here if this is the standard only for Ms Barnett. For example, Chetsford wrote a page on
200:
2516:
2241:
2213:
2078:
1962:
1941:
You mean other than the reasons already posted above for having an article about the author rather than the book?
1930:
1818:
1401:
1334:
1271:
1166:
1016:
776:, do you have anything beyond personal opinion to back up your measure of notability? Knowledge is a bureaucracy
754:
721:
641:
558:
368:
There's something wrong here if this is the standard only for Ms Barnett. For example, Chetsford wrote a page on
40:
2221:
2217:
1690:
1642:
1197:
1158:
1329:
It's fine to !vote delete, but support for that is not found in the pages you cited. They say the opposite. --
531:
2052:
2027:
481:
The standard that a journalist must have several full biographies written about them before being notable is
196:
2471:
2233:
2196:
2146:
2013:
1868:
1351:
1292:
1181:
1119:
1056:
544:
2383:
1138:
997:
992:
962:
697:
677:
2512:
2495:
1228:
891:
471:
278:
246:
141:
36:
1835:
This is a discussion where we freely exchange ideas and perspectives with each other, not a poll (see
1282:
something else, then it is SECONDARY and adds the notability of something else, but it doesn't add to
537:
2237:
2174:
2127:
2074:
2033:
1958:
1943:
I'm not sure I understand your argument here. Could you elaborate to help me consider it more fully?
1926:
1814:
1770:
1397:
1330:
1322:
1303:
1267:
1191:
You have every right to your judgement as to whether the cited sources meet the notability standards.
1162:
1134:
1004:
769:
750:
717:
637:
554:
58:
2360:
2315:
2255:
2164:
2114:
1948:
1912:
1849:
1789:
1719:
1685:
1671:
1637:
1478:
1376:
1237:
1102:
1084:
971:
802:
656:
609:
421:
409:
297:
232:
2475:
2187:
article that will contain virtually the same content -- especially since a summary of the book is
2394:
2336:
2290:
2105:
2097:
2070:
2066:
2009:
1887:
1621:
1583:
1459:
1368:
1346:
1287:
1176:
1114:
1051:
937:
509:
255:
This article was previously deleted on the consensus view that prodigious references amounted to
586:
Numerous credits for scoops by major newspapers, TV, and other news media in Seattle verify this
2232:. Keeping it around so we can work out what to eventually do with it comes out of this policy:
1396:. And shouting is writing in all caps. Bold is not shouting. Nobody is being uncivil to you. --
2452:
2307:
2229:
2093:
1997:
1904:
1863:
as being notable. With the additional non significant refs, these all lead to my answering of
1600:
1146:
1142:
1106:
1008:
949:
908:
739:
593:
487:
459:
377:
268:
260:
256:
212:
93:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2511:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
2225:
2204:
2192:
2178:
1608:
1438:
1251:
850:
777:
601:
516:
403:
369:
264:
133:
68:
2173:
You don't have to accept that creators inherit notability from their works. Notability is
2092:
establishes the criteria by which a book is notable as linked to the quantity of reviews,
2089:
1900:
1864:
1859:
1809:
add to your previous argument against Kirkus, bludgeoning the point wastes everyone's time
1803:
1628:
1430:
1255:
548:
337:
317:
53:
1599:
the subject. An unpublished book does not add to notability. The article is also full of
2356:
2311:
2251:
2160:
2110:
1944:
1922:
the book? So you can re-post your counter-arguments already posted above? Ad infinitum?
1908:
1891:
1845:
1836:
1785:
1750:
1715:
1667:
1510:
1474:
1470:"Erica C. Barnett (and her Mad List of Sources) Joins PubliCola Staff" (seattlemet.com)
1372:
1105:. There's not much visible in guidelines about that, but it is there in a footnote in
1080:
988:
967:
817:
652:
605:
417:
293:
2456:
2387:
2329:
2283:
2200:
1579:
1534:
1530:
1247:
1150:
1012:
912:
855:
535:
505:
491:
451:
395:
381:
1133:
All these comments about refbombing and how the lead is written are irrelevant: see
1993:
1286:
notability. And you are right, I don't find the sources you mentioned convincing.
1154:
945:
822:
807:
773:
735:
625:
589:
475:
286:
2470:- She's clearly notable regionally, which is good enough. However, because she is
780:, and we need more than subjective opinions. Above, I reprinted the guidance from
355:
http://coldfusioncommunity.net/erica-c-barnett-and-wikipedia-done-poorly-and-well/
171:
2352:
1940:
1840:
1832:
1781:
984:
958:
716:
a non-notable journalist and blogger. Q&A interviews do not passing GNG make.
585:
581:
401:
391:
2414:
1604:
1451:
1434:
832:
812:
2065:
With Kirkus, PW, and the NYT, plus the local ones, the memoir now easily meets
1575:
334:
314:
2476:
bringing attention to this Article for Deletion page to her Twitter followers
2353:"Viking is a major publisher, that's the yardstick Knowledge has always used"
827:
797:
1207:
refute that it is a primary source for notability purposes, then asserting
894:, which is why Knowledge falls apart if we invent new norms for every page.
1858:
Please stop bludgeoning everyone. Opinions are here to be put by editors.
1666:
That source was already in the article (source 29 as of your date stamp).
1193:
Last time around, Chetsford deleted content as uncited, or tagged it with
2177:, after all. It's simply that it's rulebound and bureaucratic to delete
2429:
search engine and we can provide a fair and neutral description of her.
1890:. On WP, AfD is a process for "discussion, debate and collaboration" (
993:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anya_Kamenetz
2410:
944:
So if that is what people are saying refbombing about, then i agree.
392:"is all this because you feel that Ms Barnett called you an asshole"
1841:
Why do you have to badger everyone who dares to disagree with you?
1595:. The subject of this article has many bylines, but not enough RS
985:"In general, we can't make changes to policy in an AfD discussion"
734:
field". What exactly is unique about a reporter doing their job?
439:
guidance you point to indicates that the existence of other pages
1802:
Nobody said it was a policy. It's a !vote, arguing that it meets
925:
Most of the refs listed here are underwhelming. Consider these
2507:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
866:
Finding stable pages with less out-of-byline information is a
1903:
which is a standard used for books, not people. Did you mean
1894:). If you find that process disagreeable then I do apologize.
1741:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
1496:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
939:
511:
331:
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions
263:
coverage that doesn't pass the biographical depth needed for
1246:
Links to the specific sources which I claim meet the bar of
1137:. Whether you can access a source or not is irrelevant. See
1603:
and, if kept, the lead needs to be completely rewritten. --
600:
are crammed into the article to create the appearance of
534:
which has been reviewed by Publishers Weekly and Kirkus
2212:
Knowledge is beating a dead horse, and that's what the
167:
163:
159:
84:
Articles for deletion/Erica C. Barnett (2nd nomination)
1782:
her book is reviewed by Kirkus which makes her notable
1465:"Politics Website Publicola to Return" (Seattle Times)
1227:
asserted in quotations by a person interviewed can be
231:
651:
Understood. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
2184:
Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery
1264:
Knowledge:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
1747:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
1507:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
1260:
Knowledge:Arguments to make in deletion discussions
1161:, but unless proved otherwise, assume good faith. —
2474:in editing this page and is gaming the system by
1839:). I regret if you find our process off-putting.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2519:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1992:, a writer's book that has received a couple of
692:Note: This discussion has been included in the
672:Note: This discussion has been included in the
329:Note: This discussion has been included in the
309:Note: This discussion has been included in the
694:list of Washington-related deletion discussions
311:list of Journalism-related deletion discussions
245:
8:
125:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
2063:, which has published Barnett's journalism.
1240:. The essay says exactly what I just said:
1149:. You should trust your fellow editors per
2125:
2031:
1957:What I said in my original !vote above. --
1153:. If you need access to a source, ask the
1002:
691:
674:list of Women-related deletion discussions
671:
328:
308:
847:with less non-byline info than this page:
2278:Librarian here. Her book was published
2109:be notable, while their author may not.
1310:Is it primary or secondary? Let's read:
966:notability under our current standards.
76:
464:Holly Williams (Australian journalist)
79:Articles for deletion/Erica C. Barnett
2207:guideline means that just because we
2038:2601:602:9600:355:A13B:73C9:791D:6B9C
7:
1996:does not mean that the writer meets
468:Elizabeth Jackson (radio journalist)
443:be relevant to a deletion question:
1784:- I'm unfamiliar with that policy.
304:; edited 06:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
75:
843:Nominated for deletion, and ruled
398:article reviewing. Not a big deal.
24:
2181:only to turn around create a new
2030:review would fit that criteria?
2199:). If a creator who didn't meet
1833:Other than to draw out a debate.
110:Introduction to deletion process
1769:her book is reviewed by Kirkus
1304:Knowledge:Interviews#Notability
1047:Knowledge:Articles for creation
408:- We have a general precedent (
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
2189:equivalent to a bio of Barnett
2055:, we now have an interview on
1:
515:etc, and besides that, meets
2220:is all about. And that one,
541:Knowledge:Notability (books)
1371:. I'm also not seeing any.
1033:Knowledge:Featured articles
100:(AfD)? Read these primers!
2536:
794:Never marked for deletion:
2500:00:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
2437:literally did win a Nobel
2061:interview on Crosscut.com
1613:02:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
1588:19:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
1547:18:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
1520:17:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
1483:00:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
1443:11:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
1406:01:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
1381:08:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
1357:09:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
1339:00:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
1298:20:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
1276:19:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
1187:18:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
1171:16:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
1125:12:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
1089:23:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
1062:13:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
1021:01:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
976:22:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
954:18:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
917:18:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
868:shooting fish in a barrel
759:17:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
744:14:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
726:20:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
706:13:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
686:13:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
661:06:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
646:02:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
614:00:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
563:21:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
496:19:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
426:17:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
386:17:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
343:14:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
323:14:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
302:13:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
63:10:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
2509:Please do not modify it.
2461:17:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
2419:22:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
2402:22:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
2365:22:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
2344:22:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
2320:22:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
2298:22:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
2260:02:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
2246:20:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
2218:Knowledge:Editing policy
2169:07:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
2155:07:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
2140:22:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
2119:20:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
2083:19:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
2046:16:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
2018:14:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
1967:18:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
1953:18:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
1935:18:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
1917:08:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
1877:07:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
1854:05:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
1823:00:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
1794:18:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
1760:07:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
1724:19:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
1706:18:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
1676:18:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
1658:06:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
2132:2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:87
2051:Besides that 700-word
1101:explained in the essay
2306:Sounds like a case of
2006:in around 22 libraries
1539:AlessandroTiandelli333
998:Knowledge:Village pump
963:Knowledge:Village pump
961:- You may want to try
74:AfDs for this article:
472:Kristian Foden-Vencil
98:Articles for deletion
2004:ie. it is only held
1323:Knowledge:Interviews
1037:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
803:Danielle Crittenden
782:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
530:Barnett also has a
437:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
414:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
2214:WP:Snowball clause
2147:Davidstewartharvey
2059:, and a 1600-word
1869:Davidstewartharvey
1556:The New York Times
1502:Relisting comment:
2400:
2342:
2296:
2142:
2130:comment added by
2053:review in the NYT
2048:
2036:comment added by
1762:
1758:
1572:Publishers Weekly
1522:
1518:
1302:How? Here's how:
1159:WP:Reference desk
1023:
1007:comment added by
770:John Pack Lambert
718:John Pack Lambert
708:
698:1234qwer1234qwer4
688:
678:1234qwer1234qwer4
622:Citation overkill
460:Geeta Guru-Murthy
345:
325:
115:Guide to deletion
105:How to contribute
2527:
2397:
2392:
2390:
2354:
2339:
2334:
2332:
2293:
2288:
2286:
2234:WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM
2197:WP:SUMMARY STYLE
2179:Erica C. Barnett
1942:
1842:
1834:
1783:
1774:
1773:
1757:
1755:
1748:
1746:
1744:
1742:
1714:Yes, of course.
1517:
1515:
1508:
1506:
1499:
1497:
1202:
1196:
986:
960:
851:Steve Handelsman
587:
583:
545:WP:Summary style
407:
404:Raymond P. Ayres
393:
370:Raymond P. Ayres
250:
249:
235:
187:
175:
157:
134:Erica C. Barnett
95:
69:Erica C. Barnett
34:
2535:
2534:
2530:
2529:
2528:
2526:
2525:
2524:
2523:
2517:deletion review
2472:openly involved
2395:
2388:
2384:WP:DROPTHESTICK
2337:
2330:
2291:
2284:
2238:Dennis Bratland
2075:Dennis Bratland
1959:Dennis Bratland
1927:Dennis Bratland
1815:Dennis Bratland
1763:
1751:
1749:
1737:
1735:
1523:
1511:
1509:
1492:
1490:
1429:: Can we get a
1398:Dennis Bratland
1331:Dennis Bratland
1268:Dennis Bratland
1200:
1198:Citation needed
1194:
1163:Dennis Bratland
1139:WP:SOURCEACCESS
751:Dennis Bratland
638:Dennis Bratland
555:Dennis Bratland
549:Caitlin Doughty
340:
320:
284:
276:
273:
192:
183:
148:
132:
129:
92:
89:
72:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2533:
2531:
2522:
2521:
2503:
2502:
2486:
2485:
2480:
2479:
2464:
2463:
2447:
2446:
2441:
2440:
2431:
2430:
2422:
2421:
2404:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2369:
2368:
2367:
2347:
2346:
2323:
2322:
2301:
2300:
2275:
2274:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2222:Editing policy
2096:- as noted by
2086:
2073:territory. --
2028:New York Times
2021:
2020:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1896:
1895:
1888:WP:BLUDGEONing
1880:
1879:
1827:
1826:
1797:
1796:
1776:
1775:
1745:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1709:
1708:
1679:
1678:
1661:
1660:
1615:
1590:
1564:The New Yorker
1549:
1505:
1500:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1472:
1467:
1462:
1456:
1455:
1446:
1445:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1367:Great points,
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1229:WP:NOTRELIABLE
1128:
1127:
1091:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1041:
1040:
1025:
1024:
979:
978:
956:
920:
919:
898:
897:
896:
895:
892:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
884:
883:
882:
881:
874:
873:
872:
871:
861:
860:
859:
858:
853:
848:
838:
837:
836:
835:
830:
825:
820:
818:Adelle Waldman
815:
810:
805:
800:
795:
789:
788:
787:
786:
764:
763:
762:
761:
728:
710:
709:
689:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
578:
577:
574:described here
567:
566:
551:, for example.
429:
428:
399:
347:
346:
338:
326:
318:
290:
283:the source is
282:
279:WP:INDEPENDENT
274:
271:
253:
252:
189:
128:
127:
122:
112:
107:
90:
88:
87:
86:
81:
73:
71:
66:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2532:
2520:
2518:
2514:
2510:
2505:
2504:
2501:
2497:
2493:
2488:
2487:
2482:
2481:
2477:
2473:
2469:
2466:
2465:
2462:
2458:
2454:
2449:
2448:
2443:
2442:
2438:
2433:
2432:
2427:
2424:
2423:
2420:
2416:
2412:
2408:
2405:
2403:
2398:
2391:
2385:
2381:
2378:
2377:
2366:
2362:
2358:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2345:
2340:
2333:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2321:
2317:
2313:
2309:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2302:
2299:
2294:
2287:
2281:
2277:
2276:
2261:
2257:
2253:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2243:
2239:
2235:
2231:
2227:
2223:
2219:
2215:
2210:
2206:
2202:
2198:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2185:
2180:
2176:
2175:not inherited
2172:
2171:
2170:
2166:
2162:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2152:
2148:
2144:
2143:
2141:
2137:
2133:
2129:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2116:
2112:
2107:
2103:
2099:
2098:Coolabahapple
2095:
2091:
2087:
2085:
2084:
2080:
2076:
2072:
2068:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2049:
2047:
2043:
2039:
2035:
2029:
2025:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2010:Coolabahapple
2007:
2003:
1999:
1995:
1991:
1988:
1987:
1968:
1964:
1960:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1914:
1910:
1906:
1902:
1898:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1878:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1861:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1851:
1847:
1838:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1825:
1824:
1820:
1816:
1810:
1805:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1771:
1768:
1765:
1764:
1761:
1756:
1754:
1743:
1740:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1707:
1704:
1703:
1699:
1698:
1694:
1693:
1689:
1688:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1659:
1656:
1655:
1651:
1650:
1646:
1645:
1641:
1640:
1634:
1630:
1625:
1622:
1619:
1616:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1591:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1550:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1525:
1524:
1521:
1516:
1514:
1503:
1498:
1495:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1473:
1471:
1468:
1466:
1463:
1461:
1458:
1457:
1453:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1425:
1424:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1369:Spinningspark
1366:
1358:
1355:
1354:
1350:
1349:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1327:
1324:
1320:
1319:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1296:
1295:
1291:
1290:
1285:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1254:, as well as
1253:
1249:
1244:
1243:
1239:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1210:
1204:
1199:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1185:
1184:
1180:
1179:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1135:WP:NOTCLEANUP
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1126:
1123:
1122:
1118:
1117:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1099:
1095:
1092:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1075:
1074:
1063:
1060:
1059:
1055:
1054:
1048:
1043:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
999:
994:
990:
983:
982:
981:
980:
977:
973:
969:
964:
957:
955:
951:
947:
942:
940:
938:
935:
933:
931:
929:
927:
924:
923:
922:
921:
918:
914:
910:
906:
902:
901:
900:
899:
893:
888:
887:
886:
885:
878:
877:
876:
875:
869:
865:
864:
863:
862:
857:
856:Anya Kamenetz
854:
852:
849:
846:
842:
841:
840:
839:
834:
831:
829:
826:
824:
821:
819:
816:
814:
811:
809:
806:
804:
801:
799:
796:
793:
792:
791:
790:
783:
779:
775:
771:
768:
767:
766:
765:
760:
756:
752:
747:
746:
745:
741:
737:
732:
729:
727:
723:
719:
715:
712:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
690:
687:
683:
679:
675:
670:
662:
658:
654:
650:
649:
648:
647:
643:
639:
633:
629:
627:
623:
617:
616:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
598:report on her
595:
594:WP:REFBOMBing
591:
580:
579:
575:
571:
570:
569:
568:
565:
564:
560:
556:
550:
546:
542:
538:
536:
533:
529:
527:
525:
523:
521:
518:
514:
512:
510:
507:
503:
500:
499:
498:
497:
493:
489:
484:
479:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
455:
453:
452:Levon Ananyan
447:
444:
442:
438:
433:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
405:
400:
397:
390:
389:
388:
387:
383:
379:
373:
371:
366:
362:
358:
356:
351:
344:
341:
336:
332:
327:
324:
321:
316:
312:
307:
306:
305:
303:
299:
295:
288:
280:
275:The interview
269:
266:
262:
258:
257:WP:REFBOMBing
248:
244:
241:
238:
234:
230:
226:
223:
220:
217:
214:
211:
208:
205:
202:
198:
195:
194:Find sources:
190:
186:
182:
179:
173:
169:
165:
161:
156:
152:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
130:
126:
123:
120:
116:
113:
111:
108:
106:
103:
102:
101:
99:
94:
85:
82:
80:
77:
70:
67:
65:
64:
61:
59:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2508:
2506:
2467:
2425:
2406:
2379:
2279:
2208:
2188:
2182:
2126:— Preceding
2101:
2064:
2032:— Preceding
2001:
1989:
1923:
1811:
1807:
1766:
1752:
1736:
1701:
1696:
1691:
1686:
1653:
1648:
1643:
1638:
1617:
1596:
1592:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1526:
1512:
1501:
1491:
1426:
1393:
1352:
1347:
1328:
1321:
1317:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1293:
1288:
1283:
1245:
1241:
1238:WP:INTERVIEW
1232:
1224:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1208:
1205:
1192:
1182:
1177:
1120:
1115:
1110:
1103:WP:INTERVIEW
1097:
1093:
1076:
1057:
1052:
1003:— Preceding
904:
867:
844:
823:Evan Whitton
808:Arno Kopecky
730:
713:
634:
630:
620:
597:
552:
501:
482:
480:
476:Brian Lanker
456:
448:
445:
440:
434:
430:
410:WP:MILPEOPLE
374:
367:
363:
359:
352:
348:
254:
242:
236:
228:
221:
215:
209:
203:
193:
180:
91:
54:
49:
47:
31:
28:
2492:71.212.13.9
2106:WP:BOOKCRIT
2071:WP:SNOWBALL
2067:WP:BOOKCRIT
1552:Weak delete
833:David Beers
813:Gina Kolata
547:), as with
483:prima facie
219:free images
2490:already.--
2308:WP:TOOSOON
2230:WP:CANTFIX
2094:WP:NAUTHOR
1998:WP:NAUTHOR
1905:WP:NAUTHOR
1753:Sandstein
1601:WP:PUFFERY
1576:Jill Leovy
1513:Sandstein
1394:as a whole
1345:yourself.
1147:WP:LINKROT
1143:WP:PAYWALL
1111:reputation
1107:WP:PRIMARY
539:, meeting
261:WP:ROUTINE
55:Ritchie333
2513:talk page
2357:Chetsford
2312:Chetsford
2252:Chetsford
2205:WP:NOPAGE
2193:WP:NOPAGE
2161:Chetsford
2111:Chetsford
1945:Chetsford
1909:Chetsford
1846:Chetsford
1786:Chetsford
1716:Chetsford
1687:King of ♥
1668:Chetsford
1639:King of ♥
1475:Chetsford
1373:Chetsford
1252:WP:ANYBIO
1098:The Daily
1081:White 720
989:Chetsford
968:Chetsford
828:Alan Bock
798:Lyle Neff
778:WP:BURYES
653:Chetsford
606:Chetsford
602:WP:SIGCOV
517:WP:ANYBIO
508:based on
418:Chetsford
294:Chetsford
265:WP:ANYBIO
37:talk page
2515:or in a
2389:Gamaliel
2331:Gamaliel
2285:Gamaliel
2128:unsigned
2090:WP:NBOOK
2057:local TV
2034:unsigned
1901:WP:NBOOK
1865:WP:BASIC
1860:WP:NBOOK
1804:WP:BASIC
1739:Relisted
1629:WP:BLP1E
1580:Caro7200
1566:, etc. (
1494:Relisted
1433:please?
1431:WP:THREE
1348:Spinning
1289:Spinning
1256:WP:NBOOK
1178:Spinning
1116:Spinning
1053:Spinning
1017:contribs
1005:unsigned
178:View log
119:glossary
39:or in a
2250:So no?
2224:, is a
2002:Quitter
1994:reviews
1990:Comment
1892:WP:PNSD
1837:WP:PNSD
1529:Passes
1427:Comment
1220:weight.
946:Bonewah
785:career:
774:Bonewah
736:Bonewah
619:missed.
335:~ Amkgp
315:~ Amkgp
277:is not
225:WP refs
213:scholar
151:protect
146:history
96:New to
2310:then?
2226:policy
2201:WP:BIO
2088:While
1605:Kbabej
1593:Delete
1568:Kirkus
1535:WP:GNG
1531:WP:BIO
1452:Stifle
1435:Stifle
1248:WP:GNG
1151:WP:AGF
1094:Delete
905:delete
731:Delete
714:Delete
506:WP:GNG
396:WP:COI
197:Google
155:delete
2280:today
2236:. --
1597:about
1353:Spark
1294:Spark
1225:facts
1209:again
1183:Spark
1155:WP:RX
1121:Spark
1058:Spark
1001:into.
626:WP:GA
590:WP:OR
287:WP:RS
240:JSTOR
201:books
185:Stats
172:views
164:watch
160:links
16:<
2496:talk
2468:Keep
2457:talk
2426:Keep
2415:talk
2407:Keep
2396:talk
2386:.
2380:Keep
2361:talk
2338:talk
2316:talk
2292:talk
2256:talk
2242:talk
2195:and
2165:talk
2151:talk
2136:talk
2115:talk
2079:talk
2042:talk
2014:talk
1963:talk
1949:talk
1931:talk
1913:talk
1873:talk
1850:talk
1819:talk
1790:talk
1767:Keep
1720:talk
1672:talk
1633:This
1623:and
1618:Keep
1609:talk
1584:talk
1570:and
1560:Time
1543:talk
1533:and
1527:Keep
1479:talk
1439:talk
1402:talk
1377:talk
1335:talk
1272:talk
1266:. --
1262:and
1250:and
1223:The
1216:out.
1167:talk
1085:talk
1077:Keep
1013:talk
972:talk
950:talk
913:talk
880:one?
845:keep
755:talk
740:talk
722:talk
702:talk
682:talk
657:talk
642:talk
610:talk
584:...
559:talk
532:book
504:per
502:Keep
492:talk
422:talk
382:talk
298:talk
285:not
281:and
233:FENS
207:news
168:logs
142:talk
138:edit
50:keep
2453:B k
2209:can
2102:and
1284:her
1233:can
1212:it?
1157:or
1009:B k
909:B k
488:B k
441:can
378:B k
289:.
247:TWL
176:– (
2498:)
2459:)
2417:)
2363:)
2318:)
2258:)
2244:)
2167:)
2153:)
2138:)
2117:)
2081:)
2044:)
2016:)
2008:.
1965:)
1951:)
1933:)
1925:--
1915:)
1875:)
1852:)
1821:)
1813:--
1792:)
1722:)
1674:)
1631:.
1620:.
1611:)
1586:)
1562:,
1558:,
1545:)
1537:.
1481:)
1441:)
1404:)
1379:)
1337:)
1306:.
1274:)
1201:}}
1195:{{
1169:)
1145:,
1141:,
1087:)
1019:)
1015:•
987:.
974:)
952:)
915:)
772:,
757:)
742:)
724:)
704:)
696:.
684:)
676:.
659:)
644:)
612:)
604:.
561:)
494:)
474:,
470:,
466:,
462:,
424:)
416:.
406:,"
384:)
339:💬
333:.
319:💬
313:.
300:)
272:It
270:"
227:)
170:|
166:|
162:|
158:|
153:|
149:|
144:|
140:|
2494:(
2455:(
2413:(
2411:U
2399:)
2393:(
2359:(
2341:)
2335:(
2314:(
2295:)
2289:(
2254:(
2240:(
2163:(
2149:(
2134:(
2113:(
2077:(
2040:(
2012:(
1961:(
1947:(
1929:(
1911:(
1871:(
1848:(
1817:(
1788:(
1718:(
1702:♠
1697:♣
1692:♦
1670:(
1654:♠
1649:♣
1644:♦
1607:(
1582:(
1541:(
1477:(
1437:(
1400:(
1375:(
1333:(
1314:.
1270:(
1165:(
1083:(
1039:.
1011:(
970:(
948:(
911:(
753:(
738:(
720:(
700:(
680:(
655:(
640:(
608:(
557:(
490:(
420:(
380:(
296:(
251:)
243:·
237:·
229:·
222:·
216:·
210:·
204:·
199:(
191:(
188:)
181:·
174:)
136:(
121:)
117:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.