Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica C. Barnett

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. This is very borderline, and difficult to get at any essential notability due to the article being poorly written with trivial sourcing that should not have been used. As noted in the discussion, the article is not focused on why the subject is notable (which appears mainly due to the Nextdoor incident), but attempts to create a general notability for which there is little evidence. There is some disagreement over the value of the alcohol article in establishing notability. I haven't given that article nor the discussion against it much weighting either way. It appears to a promotional piece for a book she has written, though that thought is not present in the discussion, so I have not considered it as weighing against notability, and on the whole have viewed that article as possibly leaning toward notability, though it would require more than that to keep the article. The most viable piece of sourcing for the subject's notability is the Nextdoor incident, though it is argued that coverage is about the incident rather than the person, so one event would apply. The delete arguments used in the discussion are more closely aligned to our inclusion criteria and policies than the keep arguments; and though there are more keeps than deletes, the keep statements are more assertions rather than rationales. "Meets XYZ" without giving details is not helpful to a closer. That is not to say there aren't some detailed keep statements and a healthy and lively discussion has taken place, but where there have been solid keep rationales, they have been refuted by reference to inclusion guidelines. I did consider this as a No consensus close, but on the whole feel that the delete arguments were more convincing when looking at the article and the sourcing, so close as delete, though will userfy on request to anyone who feels they can rewrite and refocus the article appropriately. SilkTork (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Erica C. Barnett

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Erica C. Barnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Noticed an open RfC on Talk:Erica C. Barnett regarding whether to restore, or leave deleted, some content from a potentially editorially conflicted editor Ericacbarnett who appears to be the subject of the article in question. I think this misses the larger point—that is, is this subject notable? As written, most of the references are either passing mentions, tangentially-related, and there's a fair bit of primary sources authored or co-authored by the subject herself. No indication of any significant coverage. Thus, I thought we should bring this to AfD as a potentially non-notable blogger and regional radio personality/guest host. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Friendly tags: Chetsford, as initiator of the open RfC, and Bearcat, for his expertise with respect to person/biographical notability as there's a lot of primary sources, passing mentions, and questionable, non-reliable sourcing in this article. As well, the potential WP:COI doesn't help and it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON for her autobiography which is not yet published. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak delete The bulk of RS merely mention her in passing as the author of this or that article. I almost AfDed it myself but found more thorough - albeit unflattering- treatments I thought redeemed N (which are currently undergoing RfC as to whether they should be included after the subject of the article issued a call on Twitter for the article to be defended against "assholes" [I think that's me]). I don't suspect the RfCs will allow said coverage to be included due to lack of participation from non canvassed editors. Since the only sourceable references are, therefore, not SIGCOV I'd cautiously support delete with no prejudice against future recreation. Chetsford (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Chetsford, Agreed. I think once she's got her autobiography published, given her journalism work, she may be notable, but WP:TOOSOON seems to apply here. Perhaps, then, someone, non-editorially conflicted can re-create a slimmed down version this article? ;)Doug Mehus (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep — the three articles at [1][2][3] are sufficient to meet WP:GNG and the sources at [4][5][6] show the subject is considered a signifant player in the post-print media landscape, doing city hall beat work after the downsizing of print newspapers. The sources at [7] [8][9][10][11] further corroborate this, demonstrating that Barnett has filled the void in local reporting using new media and crowdsourcing. Taken together, they meet WP:ANYBIO, that the person made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• KeepShe is undoubtedly notable, and a significant presence in the public sphere of the Pacific North West. In the age of a decline in the influence of print media, she has earned the hostility of the establishment, reporting on issues that otherwise would have been passed over.Oldperson (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets GNG, which is challenging for a profession like a journalist (or historian), where they're usually the ones writing about others, not being written about themselves. Schazjmd (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete I have a number of concerns about the article - many of the sources in the article don't cover her in a WP:GNG capacity, the (only two though three links exist) sources listed above which appear to satisfy WP:GNG only cover her in the context of one event, and the article definitely has some COI/promotional issues. I expect this to be kept based on experience and I don't mind draftifying, but based on context and sources, I don't see her as notable. SportingFlyer T·C 09:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  SportingFlyer, I agree. I'm not seeing any sources which provide significant coverage on which to write more than a stub-class article. I assume there's a similar provision for biographies as WP:CORPDEPTH such that we cannot use all primary sources to write a longer, detailed article because there may be two or three sources that meet WP:GNG but because they make relatively little mention to the subject, we can't "get" much out of those sources?

  Don't get me wrong, she's to be commended for her investigative work uncovering malfeasance, corruption, or shenanigans at Seattle city hall in age of declining print journalism, but we need to remember to check any biases or preferences in favour of seeing whether the subject is notable, eh? Doug Mehus (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Some bloggers are notable, and this one is per the SIGCOV in RS. Lightburst (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete the sourcing is not adequate to show actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. The RS clearly passes WP:SIGCOV. Those saying otherwise are clearly WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments.4meter4 (talk) 09:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• What do you think is SIGCOV? SportingFlyer T·C 11:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  SportingFlyer, Well said. I think we're seeing a lot of vague waves here from the "keep" camp, which is likely why administrator RL0919 relisted it as still in "no consensus" territory. Good example of not !vote counting by RL0919. Doug Mehus T·C 18:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The charitable, good faith assumption is that we're seeing editors who evaluated two arguments, found one more compelling than the other, and !voted without need for further embellishment, confident enough to ignore bludgeoning and sealioning. Ignoring someone yelling "debate me, dude" doesn't make them right. It usually means that the facts are already on the table and further debate would amount to mere repetition. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, True, but I'd note only one editor (yourself) has provided sources to substantiate whether WP:SIGCOV is met here. It would be nice to have some substantive analysis of the sources, so we can have a collaborative and constructive evaluation of the sources on offer. I've said why I disagree with that, so won't repeat, but I'm just saying that it would be nice to hear other editors say why they feel those sources meet WP:SIGCOV beyond merely stating that they do. SportingFlyer, did you have anything to add to this, since we're replying to your comment? Doug Mehus T·C 20:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, you should assume they're competent and diligent enough to have read the prior !votes, and choose to be concise, rather than re-state facts already given. If this was a blatantly obvious swarm of newly created SPAs in response recruiting on Reddit or someplace, you might have reason to question their competence, but there's no hint of such a thing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, I don't have a strong opinion one way or another. I'd be open to withdrawing my nomination as "speedy keep," without prejudice to renomination in the future (although there's never prejudice to renomination in the future since AfD discussions are notionally not precedent-setting); however, I'd need the consent of Johnpacklambert, Chetsford, and SportingFlyer to proceed since differing opinions have been expressed. Doug Mehus T·C 21:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

None of the articles presented above, in my opinion, get us close to WP:SIGCOV. The first three presented are about how she was suspended from Nextdoor, which isn't about her but something which happened to her in furtherance of her own journalistic position. In the other sources, she was on a panel, she was in a story about the panel she was on, a story she wrote was mentioned in another story (twice), and she's got a brief blurb from SeattleMag for starting a blog. Where's the significant coverage of her specifically? All we've established is that we've verified she's a journalist in Seattle, but there's absolutely nothing here which suggests she's notable enough for Wikipedia to have noticed. She hasn't received any sort of coverage outside of Seattle, either, and the articles which claim to establish WP:GNG are all about one event, the fact a website shut down her account. Given all that, I think it's absolutely fair to question those !voters who claim WP:SIGCOV has been established. SportingFlyer T·C 04:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

SportingFlyer and administrator Chetsford, thanks for the added discussion. Yes, this is the sort of thorough vetting of the sources Dennis presented which should help the AfD closer thoroughly analyze whether WP:GNG is met. I'm of the same opinion as you both; the articles presented aren't what I'd call significant coverage. She's a noteworthy Seattle blogger for uncovering city hall corruption and misspending, but noteworthiness does not equal notability, as I understand it. So, I tend to think this is actually a delete rather than a no consensus, at least not yet. When significant biographical works (in book(s) and/or significant, at-length biographical essay or documentary about her) are created, we can always re-create this article. Doug Mehus T·C 16:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

We often see this argument in WP:N discussions about journalists, that because their name is often cited by other journalists we can create a long reference list and a long reference list must mean WP:SIGCOV is crested. But the articles about Barnett do not contain deep, biographical information, they are merely acknowledgments she reported on this story or that story and, because this is her profession, do not rise above the level of merely WP:ROUTINE coverage of her. Chetsford (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not routine for lone bloggers to scoop major news organizations, on their own beat, with consistent regularity. When you call it routine, you’re arguing with cited sources that tell us Barnett has had unique success in the wake of newspaper downsizing. You’re asking us to weigh your personal opinions against reliable sources. Sources carry more weight than an editor’s original research. Deep biographical information has no relevance to notability. We don’t delete articles about people with significant accomplishments because we don’t know the name of their high school or their birthdate. Such trivia is beside the point. Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't see anything in the sources which would lead me to believe Barnett has had "unique success" as a journalist. In fact, reviewing the sources, I think that argument is WP:SYNTH. I've discussed the extent of the sourcing above, and I do not believe there's anything which definitively demonstrates she's notable in any of the sources. If there are articles written specifically about her, not four-sentence blurbs which discuss her in passing with her other editor, not stories that could have been written by any journalist who was temporarily blocked from a website, which I acknowledge is difficult for a journalist, I'd be more inclined to support. I just don't see any accomplishments here much less any significant ones. I also searched for the most important Seattle journalists to give you an example of someone I'd find notable - Mike Baker received national press for winning a journalism award and he doesn't have an article yet, but he would be an example of someone I would think would be a wiki-notable Seattle journalist. SportingFlyer T·C 12:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you point out which other independent journalists regularly scoop major media, changing the course of events and public policy in the process? If it's routine, it must happen all the time. I see Barnett credited in the Seattle Times regularly, but I don't see other names similarly credited. I see her cited for the significance of her work after the decline of newspapers, and you're saying there's many others just like her? Who? I'm looking at sources telling us Barnett is particularly notable for this. So you have sources saying there are many others like her? Please cite them. Mike Baker is an example of the opposite, one of the few remaining major newspaper employees. Twenty years ago reporters like Baker covered city hall, but now, per multiple sources, we don't find out what's going on from the Times, the local TV stations, or NYT correspondents like Mike Baker. It's not clear we would get any such reporting if it weren't for Barnett. Not that anybody is stopping you from creating an article about Baker; whether he is notable or not isn't really relevant. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, I can think of a few independent and mainstream media journalists who do independent exposés on those subjects, including Essex Porter, Christina McKenna (former KIRO-TV journalist; now in academia and no longer reporting—the linked "Christina McKenna" is someone else), Robert Mak (again, not the journalist who even had his own KING5 Investigators TV program!), and Sharyl Attkisson. Three of those don't have Wikipedia biographies likely because they'd fail WP:GNG despite them having more notoriety. Ms. Attkisson has her own article because there has been a lot of significant coverage about her and she's published multiple non-fiction bestsellers. Erica C. Barnett does not seem to be there, at least not yet. Doug Mehus T·C 19:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Where are the citations that they regularly scoop major media? Where are the citations that they played a major role in the post-newspaper landscape? The claim is that ECB’s work is merely routine, so the Seattle Times, KOMO, KIRO, Stranger, etc must routinely credit others as they do Barnett. Please. And why are you mentioning employees of major media and not independent journalists? Because there are few if any others like her? That she is exceptional? Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there still are some mainstream media journalists left in the investigative reporting realm. So she's not the only investigative journalist left. Nonetheless, I don't think that makes her notable. Commendable? Certainly. Noteworthy? Perhaps. Notable? No, not yet. Doug Mehus T·C 21:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Christina McKenna isn't working as a journalist, correct? She's evidence of the exodus of investigative journalists, yet your fellow editors here would see your list of names and be deceived. Sharyl Attkisson? When was the last time she did any Seattle reporting comparable to Barnett? Seems to be working full time as a Trump apologist, promoting Russian state media anti-Ukraine conspiracy theories. A bunch of anti-vaccine "exposes" before that. While Barnett's reporting has affected public policy, this Atkinsson person can share the blame for debacles like the 2019 Pacific Northwest measles outbreak. Are we supposed to take that seriously? Essex Porter appears to at least still be employed, but doing what investigation? Citation please. Robert Mak hasn't done anything since 2016, and even then, no investigation.

It appears you're making a series of false claims. You tell me there's all sorts of investigative journalists here in Seattle doing the same things as Barnett, yet you can't name one. The names you've given suggest there's an extensive list, when in fact that's entirely misleading. Would you please retract your false claims? None of the names you've mentioned support your case; in fact, they are merely a list of the journalists who have left the field, and evidence that independents like Barnett have the city hall beat to themselves. Your examples only underscore Barnett's exceptional status. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, I'm not sure how you see my claims as "misleading." We're comparing notability of comparable journalists, whether print or non-print. I'm not trying to suggest Sharyl Attkisson ever worked in Seattle or covered Seattle city hall like Erica C. Barnett. I used her as a point of comparison in that she, like Barnett, is an independent investigative broadcast journalist. Likewise, whether McKenna or Mak are no longer working as journalists, I am going from my memory of them having done good exposés for which each won journalistic awards from their industry peers on Washington State political misspending, political corruption, and the like.

I reject your claim that Ms. Attkisson is a "Trump apologist" who promotes "Russian state media anti-Ukraine conspiracy theories." I'll work on digging up the stories Porter, McKenna, and Attkisson have won either of an Emmy, RTNDA, or Edward R. Murrow award, but am busy right now. --Doug Mehus T·C 23:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Further, as I said, Erica C. Barnett may well be noteworthy for the investigative work she's doing, but we need more than that to confirm notability guidelines for people. And, even if she may meet the SNG for journalists, she still fails WP:GNG due lack of significant coverage in multiple (minimum two; three is better) reliable sources beyond merely one, two, or three line, or even paragraph mentions about her. Multiple works noting her laudable work is a start, but it doesn't equate to significant coverage. Doug Mehus T·C 23:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Other editors agree with my three sources that meet GNG, and my several examples that add upt to meeting ANYBIO. You posted your objections, and failed to sway most of them. Not much to add.

On Attkisson, here you go. And here. In what way, shape, or form is this investigative journalism? And why are you ranging far and wide across the entire United States to find investigative journalists?

Here, in Seattle, one of the two major daily newspapers stopped printing, and the rest underwent massive downsizing. Sources tell us Barnett is notable for filling the void left in local reporting. In Seattle. Barnett is repeatedly credited with uncovering news that nobody else got, and having a decisive impact on subsequent events. You tell us the sources are wrong, and pretend you have evidene of that, but you're only throwing around a lot of names that are irrelevant, and don't offer evidence that the sources are wrong about Barnett.

Can you cite anybody else doing what Barnett is doing? Here. Not off somewhere else. Not a Sinclair Broadcasting-paid propagandist. A real investigative reporter. Not someone who did investigations 10 or 20 years ago. Now, in the current media environment.

Everything you're posting here is misleading and disruptive to the discussion. You claim there are lots of others like the subject, and throw around a long list of irrelevant examples. Please retract these claims if you can't substantiate them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

We disagree and I think we're always going to, it's as simple as that - but the fact of the matter is, I've just looked through everything you've posted here and the sources in the article and there are no sources which state Barnett "frequently scoops major media" or that she plays a "major role in the post-newspaper landscape." There are articles on her alcoholism and a blurb about her memoir, but that is your own conclusion and not the conclusion the sources support. You write she's "repeatedly credited with uncovering news nobody else got" - are you talking about the single-sentence mentions in a couple of the articles above? Where's the evidence she herself has had "decisive impact on subsequent events?" Where's the source that says that? Sorry to be pedantic, but sources =/= notability, and I'm not "refuting" the sources - I'm saying none of them are enough to demonstrate notability. SportingFlyer T·C 23:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

SportingFlyer, Well said. I wasn't trying to in any way be misleading, as Dennis claims. Nor was I trying to suggest Ms. Barnett's work is not laudable, but, like you and administrator Chetsford I'm not seeing any reliable, independent sources that provide Ms. Barnett with significant coverage about her. Doug Mehus T·C 00:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Already done, to the satisfaction of most who read my !vote. I asked you to cite examples of anybody else doing work equal to Barnett's supposedly "routine" reporting, and you offer none. Now you ask me to waste my time repeating everything already stated and cited? The evidence is here in the current version of the article. Click on the footnotes and read. They tell you what ECB uncovered that others missed, and they tell you what influence it had on subsequent events. I'm not going to bother walking you through it if you won't bother citing the examples I asked for, or else admitting you have no comparable examples.

Most of the editors who saw my argument and read the article !voted keep. You're challenging me to go over it all again? That's bludgeoning and sealioning. You can forget it. You claimed ECBs work is commonplace, routine, yet when asked for examples of anyone else doing the same thing, you deflect. That says it all.

Dmehus, please retract your false claims, or cite support for them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, I haven't made any "false claims." I'm currently busy right now, but will try and find sources showing Christina McKenna's, Essex Porter's, Robert Mak's, and Sharyl Attkisson's Emmy, Edward R. Murrow, and RTNDA award wins for "investigative news reporting" within the next day or so. In the mean time, I might suggest a Google advanced phrase search for their names and phrasing for their award wins with respect to investigative reporting.

The only ones who have presented any sources or substantive discussion beyond mere !votes are yourself, SportingFlyer, administrator Chetsford, and I. You presented the sources, which SF, Chetsford, and I challenged as meeting significant coverage. I'm not asking you to explain everything over again, so not sure how you might see that as "sealioning" or "bludgeoning" (sorry, I'm new-ish to Wikipedia editing and not familiar with those Wikipedia essays). I am assuming good faith, and ask that you do the same with me with respect to trusting that I know what I am talking about; I watched those reporters' investigative reports for years in the mid to late 1990s when I was 14-18 years old. Doug Mehus T·C 00:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I asked for, and I think it's unhelpful, and even disruptive, to continue to waste others' time talking about people who are not investigative journalists in Seattle. Nobody cares that Attkisson won an Emmy 20 years ago (she burned her reputation to the ground since then with anti-vaxx misinformation[12][13] and far-right talking points). Twenty years ago Barnett had a job at a newspaper. What this is about is what happened after the newspapers had mass layoffs, and the remaining local reporters were spread too thin to sit through hours long city council meetings taking notes of on things that mostly go nowhere, poring over public documents and transcripts and mostly coming up empty. That's what changed. Seattle used to have two daily newspapers and two vibrant weeklies that paid multiple reporters to spend all their time doing this stuff. The TV news had to be good enough to compete with that. You're right that many years ago there were all these people doing that work, but that's not what this is about. Now the workforce is laid off and scattered, as in your examples of former local reporters who are now off elsewhere doing something else.

If you have no examples of anybody here in Seattle doing what ECB does, then please simply admit it and stop this waste of our time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, I apologize if you feel it was an unnecessary diversion. SF, Chetsford, and I have disputed that the sources you provided meet WP:SIGCOV and explained our reasons why.

You're probably right that my including the other journalists' accolodes was an unnecessary, tangentially-related diversion, so I'll concede that.

I maintain my position that the sources you provided, for which I duly thank you for doing in addition to your discussion contributions for which I also thank you, do not meet our definition of WP:GNG. Erica C. Barnett may well meet the SNG for journalists/bloggers for her investigative journalism, which I'd already stated, but perhaps Chetsford and SF can clarify...SNGs an are an additional guideline, not an "instead of" guideline. Put another way, meeting an SNG means a subject is likely to be notable, but it does not guarantee notability if the subject fails WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV, which is what we're arguing. Does that help clarify? --Doug Mehus T·C 00:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

"That's not what I asked for, and I think it's unhelpful, and even disruptive, to continue to waste others' time talking about people who are not investigative journalists in Seattle." For the record, as an observer - and occasional participant - in this conversation I do not consider my time is being wasted. Chetsford (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

"If you have no examples of anybody here in Seattle doing what ECB does" - There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes notability insofar as Wikipedia is concerned. There is a difference between a person being objectively notable and a person being notable for purposes of WP. A person is only notable if they are the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. A person who invented a working time machine would not be notable, as far as WP is concerned, if they were not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Barnett may very well be filling a void left by the demise of newspapers or whatever, however, the doesn't make her notable for purposes of WP. She may well deserve a prize or an Attaboy, but that doesn't mean she gets a WP article. There is only and exactly one route to notability for a journalist and that is through WP:SIGCOV. Our individual perceptions of their value or goodness is not a route to WP:N. Chetsford (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Glad that at last we agree on the facts. Some of us feel those facts meet at least one if not two routes to notability, while your opinion is they don't. Not much more to say.

Unfortunately, as with the howler earlier as to the use of original research in an AfD discussion, a bit of misinformation has been introduced here, and someone needs to correct the falsehood that WP:SIGCOV is the 'only and exactly one' path to notability. At the top of WP:N: "it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". I've cited 3 sources that I and some others feel meet WP:GNG (also known as SIGCOV), and even if you aren't convinced of that, I've argued that the topic also meets WP:ANYBIO, for the reasons I stated above. Some others agree with me; you and some others of course disagree. Fine. Your opinion is your opinion. Maybe you think you've made strong arguments, but I don't see any valid arguments because you haven't cited sources that support them, such as for example, instances of others doing the 'commonplace' 'routine' thing that ECB is supposedly so unremarkable for. But lacking sources, it's ultimately a matter of editorial judgement, whether one, or both, of the two claimed routes to notability are met here. --Dennis Bratland (talk)

"Not someone who did investigations 10 or 20 years ago. Now, in the current media environment." Dmehus can validly cite someone from 1,000 years ago if s/he likes. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. This is Wikipedia, not Everipedia. Chetsford (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether or not those other people are notable. It's whether any of them are counterexamples to the assertion that Barnett's work is exceptional, not routine. That fact that 20 years ago these other reporters did routinely do the work that Barnett, and few if any others, now do with no institutional/corporate support, actually bolsters the case that she is notable. Some editors here have claimed her work is merely routine but so far none have named anyone else who does what Barnett does. The !delete argument hasn't cited any of the most obvious kind evidence that would make their case. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

"none have named anyone else who does what Barnett does" Because that's WP:OR. We don't engage in original analysis of resumes and notability is not a synonym for uniqueness. The world's only one-armed trapeze artist may be unique but, unless he is the subject of significant and non-routine coverage about himself, he is not notable insofar as we're concerned. You seem to be under the impression that we're here to pass judgment on Barnett's qualifications or innate goodness, which we're not. As far as I know, she may be the most fabulous journalist since Edward R. Murrow. Neither the presence nor absence of a WP article is a comment on a person's vocational competence. Chetsford (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

First, WP:NOR says: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards."

Second, you said "acknowledgments she reported on this story or that story and, because this is her profession, do not rise above the level of merely WP:ROUTINE coverage of her." Did a source say that? Or is it a conclusion you reached as a result of your own original research? WP:ROUTINE says it's a common thing, everyday. If that's something that happens every day in Seattle, that local independent journalists are credited by major media with scoops that affect subsequent events or policy, then cite them. Or simply admit that there isn't anybody else getting credits like this in the Seattle Times, the weeklies, and TV news.

Innate goodness? What? Are you just making stuff up now? Can you focus on the subject at hand, and on the issues that have actually been raised? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

"Are you just making stuff up now? Can you focus on the subject at hand, and on the issues that have actually been raised?" Hi Dennis - I appreciate your passion but it would be welcomed by myself, and others in this dialog, if you could winnow your comments to those related to our policies and not use the Talk page to attack or disparage the motivations of other editors as you did here, and have repeatedly done with others. Thanks, in advance, for your kind consideration and your willingness to help make WP a welcoming space for civil discussion. Chetsford (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

In that case you had no reason to say "You seem to be under the impression that we're here to pass judgment on Barnett's qualifications or innate goodness, which we're not." You pulled that accusation out of thin air, correct? If you didn't, then please cite what I posted that would justify characterizing my editing in such an uncharitable way. It appears you're casting aspersions on me, for what reason I can only guess. Please assume good faith and cease questioning my motives, or belittling my posts by accusing me of advocacy or somehow promoting anybody's "innate goodness", whatever that even means. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

"You pulled that accusation out of thin air, correct?" Incorrect. Chetsford (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Oops, excuse me but I think you forgot to post the diff that goes with that. Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Chetsford, very well said. Erica C. Barnett may well be an intrepid investigative journalist willing to hold the powers to be to account, but of the sources provided so far in this AfD and of the sources I've been able to search so far, like you and SportingFlyer, I can see nothing which amounts to significant coverage about her. A lot of editors seem to be under the mistaken impression that passing an SNG amounts to the subject passing notability, but it's a wrong assumption. Here we have a case where the noteworthy journalist is not notable due to failing WP:GNG. Doug Mehus T·C 18:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ——SN54129 15:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Subject of article clearly passes WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion seems to be leaning Keep, but it's still in No Consensus territory, so giving another round to develop consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment to RL0919 or other AfD closer: note that significant new discussion is occurring in the thread above this line. Thanks. Doug Mehus T·C 19:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep First, please note that WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are fundamentally subjective. Those advocating for 'keep' have presented some support for WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV, and the question is only whether that support is sufficient. There are so many guidelines on WP:BIO that both 'keep' and 'delete' sides have found supporting guidelines. It would be great if there were an objective criterion like a simple numeric cutoff for citation counts, but there isn't.

My opinion is that this judgment call, with reasonable opinions on both sides, should be resolved in favor of 'keep'.

° It should take the experienced wikipedians reading this only a minute to find many articles about individuals who are not and have never been marked as candidates for deletion, despite having far fewer notability-supporting citations—even setting aside "stubs" with zero or one citations. It's worth asking why this article, with 34 references right now, was marked and those weren't. If this article has been marked because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons, because of early COI issues with Ms Barnett making edits, because of the difficulty of defining "Blogger" versus "Journalist", or because it may be a difficult page to manage (this article about an ostensibly non-notable person already has over a hundred edits!), none of those are relevant to WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. We should recognize the possibility that the initial flagging and some of the comments above are influenced by those concerns. If those not-relevant concerns influenced claims of non-notability, but are not a valid part of the notability debate, that advocates toward resolving the borderline case by leaning the other way toward accepting notability.

° Many sources assert that there is inequity in the wikipedian population that spills over to what is covered, kept, or deleted. Those sources include Wikipedia: see WP:WORLDVIEW and Gender bias on Wikipedia. In a borderline case about a category of people where the wrong call has been made by wikipedians (historically, not necessarily by those in this discussion), the cautious thing to do is to err on the side of 'keep'. This isn't about affirmative action or lower standards for women; this is about taking in the history documented in WP and the press and using it as one piece of information about how to handle a case with reasonable perspectives on both sides.

° People are sometimes notable locally but not nationally or globally. Have a look at the List of Armenian journalists. Almost all have only one or two citations, but I know very little about Armenian culture, and therefore defer to Armenians about evaluating these pages. I think this is analogous to deferring to molecular biologists about who is notable in molecular bio, even though their names are unknown outside the field.

One side of the discussion states that Ms Barnett is notable in Seattle; the other states that she is not notable from the perspective of wikipedians who seem to have time zone markers outside of the Pacific Northwest. I believe that the subjective evaluation of locals should have more than weight the subjective evaluation of generalists, which advocates for resolving this borderline case with 'keep'. For readers who disagree and advocate 'delete' for this page, the only consistent thing to do is to flag almost every page in the list of Armenian journalists for deletion.

I didn't look for additional citations to respond to the people who state that this is not passing WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV, because there is no count-of-citations criterion. Both sides concede that there is some evidence for notability, and everything after that is a subjective evaluation—especially given the many subjective criteria for marking or not marking notability and the thousands upon thousands of wikipages with a fraction of the citations than given here. Context matters, and I believe that the contexts discussed above indicate that we should err on the side of 'keep' in resolving this judgment call.

[PS: I originally created this article; see the head of the talk page for disclaimers.] B k (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

"I believe that the subjective evaluation of locals should have more than weight" While a valid belief to have, I would disagree this is within either the letter or spirit of policy. However, thank you for registering an opinion nonetheless! Chetsford (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• B k, I agree with administrator Chetsford here. I respectfully disagree that SNGs can trump GNG. Indeed, in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernesto_Alciati deletion discussion, S Marshall, myself, and a couple other editors, in the minority, argued that the SNGs do not, in fact, trump the WP:GNG. Despite having "competed" in the 1920s Olympics, many editors argued he passed the SNG WP:NOLY (technically, he was scratched in that he never got to compete in the Olympics, but they still argued that he passed that and thus WP:GNG did not apply). The closing administrator even felt that those arguing delete had the stronger case because, in fact, SNG does not trump WP:GNG but still ruled "no consensus."
  It's a similar story here, I suspect, in that the delete arguments are, arguably, much stronger, so the best outcome that those arguing "keep" can hope for would be a "no consensus" outcome. That would still effectively mean the article stays in place, with notability still very much in question. But, throughout your long opinion, and the preceding apparent evidence that WP:SIGCOV was met (still nothing about Ms. Barnett has been presented, I noted), I see no evidence as to WP:SIGCOV having been met. Doug Mehus T·C 01:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment This is certainly an interesting AfD, but I want to counter some of the points which have been recently made:

• Local editors are in no better position to determine notability than anyone else, with the potential exception of language issues. The only thing which matters is whether she passes our notability guidelines, and there is nothing that suggests editors from outside Seattle are more likely to determine she's notable than people outside Seattle - it's all about whether there are enough reliable, secondary sources which support her notability. I'm mostly commenting because I'm concerned about some of the keep !votes and don't want to create a slippery slope based on their arguments at other AfDs.
• Whether SNGs trump GNGs or not (they do not, the article still requires reliable sourcing), she still fails WP:ANYBIO, as there's no evidence of her "widely recognised contribution" in the historical record.
• I don't concede there is some evidence of notability, there's at best one or two articles which might count.
• Citation counts are indeed irrelevant, this is a straw man.
• For those voters who are passionately voting !keep, please note I'd be open to changing my vote to a !keep if sources which definitively discuss her can be found - not just about her one flap with NextDoor, which as I've said above really isn't about her, and not articles which quote the articles she's written, because that's not significant coverage. I do not think she passes WP:GNG - the best sources on her specifically are blogs, or about a minor event she was specifically involved in. I'd like a reliable secondary source specifically on her which discusses how she's worked to change media in Seattle, and that might change my mind. SportingFlyer T·C 02:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• For those just tuning in, here are some of the articles cited on the page that are about Ms Barnett, but not about the NextDoor incident.

• A radio interview.
• A short piece about Ms Barnett's importance in Seattle politics reporting.
• Her mention as one of "Seattle's most influential people"
• Her award from a civic association.
• A piece about why Ms Barnett's forthcoming book is already gossip-worthy.

There don't seem to be arguments specifically addressing the citations, something of the form "Seattle Magazine's 'most influential' column does/doesn't indicate notability because...", so evaluating whether these are sufficient to pass Wikipedia's notability requirement seems to be a subjective call about an overall impression. B k (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Quick source analysis of the four articles presented, which emphasises how I don't think she passes WP:GNG:
  • 1) Interviews of a subject do not lend themselves to the notability of that subject, they're primary.
  • 2) This article is written by the organisation about how Barnett joined that organisation, it's not secondary.
  • 3) Barnett is mentioned twice and only in passing, the blurb might lend itself to the notability of the organisation PubliCola but unfortunately not Barnett
  • 4) This is a good award to have won! Unfortunately the citation comes from the award's own website, and the only press to cover the award I can find is the newspaper Barnett was working for, so they're both primary. SportingFlyer T·C 03:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) SportingFlyer, it's incorrect to say " Interviews of a subject do not lend themselves to the notability of that subject, they're primary." Interviews very much serve as evidence of notability. Nobody gets to have themselves interviewed at will at the New York Times or on 60 Minutes just because they wish to burnish their fame and promote their brand. Sources devote interview space to people who are significant. The word count or minutes or bandwidth a publication gives to a subject is evidence of that. The truth value of what the interview subject says in the interview is a whole other matter; that is WP:PRIMARY. It's no more reliable than if they tweeted it. They're only stating their opinions, not necessarily establishing fact just because the NYT printed the quote. It's WP:SELFPUB in that sense, but the reliability of information as a citation and the value of coverage for notability are two entirely different things. A subject expert can be reliable and cite-able in their field of expertise, yet not be notable enough for a Wikipedia bio about them. Someone can be notable, and have a Wikipedia bio about them, due to the amount of coverage they get, yet not speak a single trustworthy word, or not be considered expert or knowledgeable on any topic except their own opinions. Your error here is mixing up these two categories. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
      • @Dennis Bratland: Sorry, but please read Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability, specifically If it's primary and non-independent, our guidelines make clear that it does not contribute to notability.. I am certain I have not erred in my assessment of that source for the purposes of Ms. Barnett's notability. SportingFlyer T·C 06:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Merely an essay. Carries no weight as a guideline or policy does. All you're telling us here is that out there somewhere is another guy who shares your opinion that interviews don't add to notability. Just an opinion, not a guideline, not policy. Some editors have wished to add this to the notability guidelines, but they've failed because that opinion lacks consensus. It makes no sense. Any John Q. Nobody can go write a Wikipedia essay, but John Q. Nobody can't get themselves interviewed in the Times. That honor is reserved for a select few. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
          • She didn't get interviewed in the Times. She was interviewed by a local radio station. And it's still not a reliable secondary source. SportingFlyer T·C 06:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
            • Yep, we get that. Once again, as I and others have been saying, that's your opinion. Repeating it this way doesn't give it any more weight than the first time you said it. You all keep going on and on and on with this, but you're not adding information to the debate. You're just telling us all over and over that your position is ever more entrenched. We get it. It seems to bother you that your points have failed to win a majority as the !votes roll in, but this bludgeoning isn't helping. It's time to step back and let everyone judge the sources on their merits. They're just as capable of that as you are.

              I don't like just letting it go when false statements like this thing about interviews are posted, or that there's only one route to notability, or that original research is banned form AfD discussions, but that's how these myths take life. Somebody has to speak up when misinformation is spread.

              But the outcome of the AfD hinges on the sources themselves, not this lame debate. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

              • It's also your opinion. It doesn't bother me at all my points haven't gained traction - several people I respect agree with me, people like yourself who disagree with me haven't produced any quality sources, and I'm comfortable being correct in my analysis. AfDs aren't meant to be won or lost, they're discussions. I'm more than happy to agree to disagree with you and to move on. SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
              • "not this lame debate" If you feel this debate is lame, we're lame, everything here is lame - as you keep reminding us in different ways - you are free to choose not to participate. Obviously your participation is welcome but I feel it's necessary to advise you that it is also not compulsory, in case you were under the misperception your presence in something you find so "lame" was something beyond your control. Chetsford (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

          Dennis Bratland, Essays do help to interpret policies and guidelines, so I would take issue with your opinion that they carry no weight. SportingFlyer is correct, wholly, in his detailed assessment with respect to sourcing. I support all four of his points. Doug Mehus T·C 21:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, I'm only replying because these bald contradictions of policy need to be corrected. People believe this stuff if they read it. Read WP:ESSAY: "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created and edited without overall community oversight. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional. There are currently about 2,000 essays on a wide range of Wikipedia-related topics." Read WP:POLICIES: "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval." Were I to go whip up my own essay to go with the 2,000 others, saying the opposite of your opinion, I don't think you'd find it helpful. They can serve as shorthand. You could !vote "per <essay>", rather than writing out a full treatise on your opinion, you refer to someone else who expounded on the same opinions. "Sorry, but please read <essay>" is a fallacious argument from authority.

Why not just let it go? Surely you've presented all your best arguments. You really don't need to keep reminding everyone that you support those points which you've previously expressed support for, I count, six times? Each person who !votes keep doesn't need to comment on every other keep !vote saying they agree with the others. If you were to suddenly cease supporting them, you only have to go cross out your !vote. If you say nothing, we all presume you continue to hold the position you previously stated you hold.

I will now not go and post "I agree" under each of the keep !votes. Not. Necessary. We. Get. It. Can we all drop the stick? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Some of the articles you've cited are, in fact, the very articles you've previously said should be omitted from the article under all circumstances because they supposedly violate BLP (i.e. those acknowledging The Atlantic libel case and her alcoholism). If the articles are RS for purposes of establishing N, then you should have no objection to reinserting them into the article. If the articles are not RS, then they can't even be considered for purposes of N. Chetsford (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The criteria by which the article is being proposed for deletion strike me as absurd. By this logic, we would delete the article for Harrison Salisbury, which contains considerably fewer independent verifiable sources indicating his importance. If Wikipedia had articles only for journalists who have been frequently and extensively profiled, rather than their work being frequently and extensively cited, we would have very few articles about living journalists, except for a few that have become celebrities in their own right. - Jmabel | Talk 22:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Jmabel, Well, that may well be that Wikipedia is full of articles of non-notable journalists who shouldn't otherwise have articles. Nevertheless, that's not a valid argument for keeping this article. No evidence has been presented thus far, of the sources Dennis has presented (the only "keep" !voter to present actual sources; the other "keep" !votes were mere vague waves). We do not, as far as I'm aware, justify keeping articles because other questionably notable people have articles. Administrator Chetsford or editor SportingFlyer may be able to add further to this; better than I can. Doug Mehus T·C 00:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Jmabel, Also Harrison Salisbury had an at-length obituary published in a major metropolitan daily newspaper; that qualifies as significant coverage. There are also in-text and footnote references which indicate offline sources exist that would turn that into multiple qualifying services. Thus, I think he passes WP:GNG relatively easily. No such luck for Ms. Barnett. There has simply been not even one qualifying significant coverage reliable, independent source presented, never mind the required multiple ones (WP:THREE indicates that three is considered the best minimum, but two would suffice). Doug Mehus T·C 00:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • As I said, "we would have very few articles about living journalists" (emphasis added). Yes, they get obituaries. - Jmabel | Talk 01:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (if there is any doubt what I'm saying) keep. I would think membership in a short-list of "Seattle's most influential people" would, on its own, come at least pretty close to sufficing for inclusion. - Jmabel | Talk 01:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Dmehus: How is Seattle magazine not an "independent source"? or are you saying that inclusion in such a list is not significant? - Jmabel | Talk 01:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Seattle magazine clearly doesn't cover her significantly, it just name-drops her twice. It also covers by my count 48 people and the "students, teachers and PTSA of Ingraham High School" in a list format. By WP:OSE, Harrison Salisbury has thousands of matches on a simple Newspapers.com search even though the Wikipedia article itself is currently undersourced. Finally, Dmehus, I would appreciate if you would stop pinging me into this discussion - the case for deletion is clear, but I've already spilled a lot of ink and don't want to spend any more time bludgeoning the discussion here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Significant coverage for both the Nextdoor incident, as well as other coverage, such as her receiving a “Government News Reporting of the Year” in 2007 [14]. Samboy (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

  Samboy, While the Nextdoor story may be a significant item in her life, it is, crucially, not significant coverage for our purposes of determining notability. 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 (or grave, in the case of deceased subjects).

  I would also point you, others, and the XfD closer to this recent AfD discussion which closed as "no consensus" despite a plethora of vague wave "keep" votes and a minority of stronger "delete" votes. In that case, which is remarkably similar to this case, the vague wave "keeps" insisted on the subject "competing" at the Olympics so per WP:NOLY (an SNG), he "must" be notable. Similar story here where those !voting "keep" because she passes the SNG for journalists, she "must" be notable. Yet, as SportingFlyer, administrator Chetsford, and I have pointed out, the SNG does not replace the WP:GNG, which Erica C. Barnett has clearly and, crucially, not met. Note from SF's and Chetsford's replies above, the the Sound Effect podcast interview is neither a reliable sources (at least for establishing notability because it's crucially a primary, or quasi-primary, source. The remainder of the sources identified by Dennis in good faith have been mere tangential, passing mentions. Until her memoir is published, and even then, we need at least 1-2 more sources, she's not-notable and should be deleteed. Though, probably the "safe" close for the XfD closer would be to close as "no consensus" (which would have the effect of retaining her article, with notability still in question, and at least appeasing the non-evidence-substantiated "keeps"). Doug Mehus T·C 16:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

  It’s not a “vague wave” Keep vote. The Nextdoor issue has has significant coverage or is the primary topic of multiple articles in reliable third party sources: [15] [16]. The award she received in 2007, as well as a full article about her upcoming book from a reliable source means there is not a WP:BLP1E issue. Please be aware that “a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive” Samboy (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

  Samboy, respectfully, that's irrelevant whether the Nextdoor issue has significant coverage. That's important in the context of establishing whether Nextdoor is a notable publication (it may well be worthy of its own article, if it doesn't already have one), but such coverage does nothing to establish the significant coverage notability requirement of WP:GNG for Erica C. Barnett.

  No one claimed a WP:BLP issue for Erica C. Barnett, so not sure why you are mentioning that. As to your citing some digital-only blog's announcement of her receiving some local award in 2007, that, too is not significant coverage. WP:SIGCOV requires multiple, reliable, independent sources of sufficient length of the subject's life to write more than a stub-class article. The only source that comes close to meeting WP:SIGCOV is the Sound Effect podcast interview, but the problem is it's (a) a primary or quasi-primary source and (b) it's not a qualifying reliable source. Thus, she still fails WP:GNG.

  I respect your, and other editors', good faith !votes, even though this is notionally not a vote as it's an evidenced-based discussion, and would ask that you do the same by not saying my replies are "groundless opinion" or "proof by assertion." I'm simply pointing out that this is not a vote and, while some of the replies may not have been "vague waves" (that might've not been the right language), they are, nonetheless, !votes unsubstantiated by policy or evidence. That's all I, administrator Chetsford, and SF were trying to say. Doug Mehus T·C 18:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

References

• Move to draft. Everyone will be equally unhappy. Gives time for whatever memoir to impact, or not. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

  Hyperbolick, a reasonable suggestion. This article has WP:PUFFERY and WP:NPOV issues, so I would support that. As well, when her memoir is published by Viking, that would likely go a long way to establishing her notability. Thank you for this suggestion...sometimes it helps to have someone guide us to a reasonable compromise in heated situations. This is one of those ideas. Secondarily, it would allow the article to be cleaned up for the above issues, not to mention Ms. Barnett's repeated COI editing of her own article. Doug Mehus T·C 18:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

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.