Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juli Briskman

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 22:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juli Briskman

[edit]

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

Juli Briskman (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)

This woman flipped off the president and got a whole bunch of coverage. She has now been elected to a county level post. Neither of these confer notability under any SNG nor do they add-up to GNG. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I could never understand this policy of deleting articles that are useful for the final reader. In the end, shouldn't that be the final criterium - what's useful for the end-user? I was just listening to some international coverage on this woman I had never heard of. I got curious, and I looked her up on Wikipedia. I was lucky to find the article and get the context. Who cares if she is relevant according to some obscure criteria that is subjective anyway (to me, she is definitely relevant). What should matter is whether this article is sought and read by wikipedia users who want to have information on a subject. Under tha criterium, no person is too unimportant, as long as readers want to know about her.jlmalaquias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaquias (talk • contribs) 09:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep I agree with the nom. Low level local officeholder fails WP:NPOL. WP:NOT applies. Lightburst (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There was media establishing her notability twice: once for being arrested, now for being elected. Either one wouldn't establish notability but now she has been covered multiple times by multiple outlets for multiple things across multiple years. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I’m not even done with the article as it is (as I said in the edit summary I’ve only published the foundation of it) but anyway, for 2 years now the woman has gotten sustained coverage from the biggest reliable sources that exist not just in the US but internationally. If that doesn’t meet general notability then this is pure goal post moving. I mean for God’s sake, the New York Times isn’t good enough for you? The Washington Post isn’t good enough for you? The Independent isn’t good enough for you? Vogue isn’t good enough for you? USA Today isn’t good enough for you? The Guardian isn’t good enough for you? CNN isn’t good enough for you? NBC News isn’t good enough for you? TIME isn’t good enough for you? BBC isn’t good enough for you? That she flipped her local office is a continuation of her saga in the public eye. But as usual, as soon as a female gets an article the deletion machine goes into overdrive. Trillfendi (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not fair. female gets an article the deletion machine goes into overdrive. I reject that assessment. And basically she flipped off the president and the AP coverage was repeated out over and over. Can you imagine how many people have flipped off a president? This one? Now she is a low level politician, and that is it. For the rest of her life, she is the lady who flipped the bird to the pres. And they will run that same photo and bring up that AP article. Not encyclopedia worthy IMO. Lightburst (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is, she is the one who made international news for telling the president she thought he was number one (you get my drift). That act in itself wasn’t encyclopedia worthy, it would’ve been a paragraph in another article at best and she would’ve continued her life a normal working woman in Virginia. The difference is, she turned that notoriety into sustained coverage and a successful foray into politics, no matter how low people see the position, she won the election and once again is in the international news—and the nationwide elections happened on Tuesday weren’t even that eventful so that’s saying something—with facts to verify biographical details. For all I care she could’ve thrown rotten tomatoes at him. Trillfendi (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A person flips the bird to the president...and later gets coverage for something not at all noteworthy. This woman has been elected to a low level position similar to an Alderman or even a School Board Member. The coverage she gets is from a liberal media establishment. From here forward all of her coverage will only be as a result of her one defiant vulgar gesture (see headline of every ref in article). If a WP reader or editor is liberal, the woman is referred to as plucky (see below keep vote) If a reader or editor is conservative, the woman is irreverent and not noteworthy. One !voter points out that her area (Loudoun County) is Republican as if her win was notable because of a flip - however her area voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And in 2016 Donald Trump was trounced in (Loudoun County). The state of Virginia also has a Democrat Governor (Ralph Northam) and voted Democrat (Hillary Clinton) in 2016. Lightburst (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was born and raised in Virginia... I already know how it gets down. It wasn’t that long ago that they Bob McDonnell was governor (it was bloody 5 years ago). Virginia really isn’t the liberal bastion people try to make it out to be when we have teachers probably still using the Abeka curriculum in private schools because they can get away with it, but I digress. Personally, I have no bias for any political party when I edit, let the record show. What matters here is the notability requirements don’t change just because of the circumstances of how they got attention. One of the guidelines is Notability is not temporary. Essentially this woman struck lightning twice. Trillfendi (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. so pray tell how does that not apply to this subejct? Trillfendi (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject". Per Trillfendi. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Trillfendi. Sharper {talk} 00:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Trillfendi and Tagishsimon. Notabilty comes in many flavors and from many directions and for many reasons. She has had multiple mentions in RS, ergo Notable Oldperson (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reporting on her election is substantially linked to the gesture she made — The Guardian even words it that way, as Woman who gave Trump the finger elected in Virginia. That The Guardian had to mention the first incident in order to relate the second shows that this is a single claim story. The coverage of her being elected is to a local position, which does not satisfy WP:NPOL, since I take "significant press coverage" to mean more than reporting on only one incident. Regards,  Spintendo  01:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how you can't count two events, magically see it as BLP1E. Abductive (reasoning) 01:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aside from the original media coverage due to the viral photo and her firing, there is now again international coverage of her due to her victory in the Virginia elections. I actually saw a report on her in the mainstream Germans news.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All of the coverage is due to her single act of flipping off the President. Without that, there would be zero coverage. Hence WP:BIO1E applies. Onel5969 TT me 01:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how you can't count two events, magically see it as BLP1E. Abductive (reasoning) 01:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s how it goes: Woman is photographed by White House photographer flipping off the president with face not shown, photo goes viral, woman makes international news, woman gets fired for ‘fessing up to it being her, woman sues, woman decides to run for office a year later rather than appeal for her job back (news covers it), woman wins office 2 years later, woman makes more news than she did the first time. Is it hard? Trillfendi (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Denial is the first stage of grief. Abductive (reasoning) 02:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Grieving... what exactly? The 30 minutes to conceive the article while chilling in bed on my day off? 5 editors are already in agreement with me on notability so try again. Trillfendi (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not you, the Delete voters. Abductive (reasoning) 02:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in that case can we get a speedy/snowball close? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is mountain of coverage her that trumps the known for one event argument. I suspect she probably was reported on by every newspaper in the west at the very least. Here is a Der Spiegel article:[1]. If it is case of she slips into oblivion 6 months up the road, then article can be revisited, but at the moment is vastly salient.scope_creepTalk 11:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep She received international attention for flipping off President Donald Trump. Despite her controversial behaviour, she gained international news which in fact makes her very much notable. Abishe (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The deletion argument here is that certain aspects or events do not guarantee notability. That may very well be the case but it is in itself not a good argument for deletion, as it neglects the fact that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent publications. --Cold Season (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A previously unknown Iraqi journalist threw both his shoes at President George W. Bush. I see separate web pages for the journalist and for the incident. Paul Klinkman —Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete Ehhhh, I'm very uncomfortable keeping this, but I'm not sure how strong my delete argument is especially given the many keep !voters above. WP:NPOL is in no way satisfied. WP:GNG is arguably satisfied. This really feels like two WP:NOTNEWS public interest stories which have merged into a WP:BLP2E. I'm not going to vote to delete it, but I wanted to comment here in the event someone looks at this ten years from now and wonders what the heck we were all doing then if she never gets any further press coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 10:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that’s where WP:CRYSTALBALL comes in. We don’t know what’s gonna happen even next year in politics let alone in a decade. WaPo sums up the current trend of non-politicians running for office because they were pissed off enough to. Hence why the article wasn’t created before she actually accomplished notability. And as I pointed out up top, one of the guidelines applies to 15 minutes of fame: Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. (then again, here we are 2 years later). For myself, I had long forgotten about the story until I was bombarded with news stories about her after the election on Tuesday. So like I said, y’all can call this a low-level position but the only other person who was getting this level of coverage (nationally and internationally) was Andy Beshear of the Kentucky gubernatorial race. Trillfendi (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually where WP:10YT comes in. If she goes from strength to strength, there's no issue. If we never hear from her again, I'm not convinced she's actually notable, and we've just had two "and finally!" stories about the same person. But again, not arguing to delete it. SportingFlyer T·C 22:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated to a delete after checking how few votes she received in the county election. I know this will get kept because of the large number of keep !votes above me, but I don't care. Even though she won the election, she only got covered in the election because of the event she's notable for. SportingFlyer T·C 10:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Though I share SportingFlyer's concerns, I'm willing to give this a chance (and there is decent coverage that may indeed satisfy GNG). — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super strong delete This "media covered her election" is rubbish. County officials get media coverage for election, but we have decided that is never enough to show notability. Making obscene gestures at the president falls under news, and thus is excluded under the not news guidelines. It is time to rid Wikipedia of its horrendous presentism and the junk articles that clutter it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this rubbish article is kept it will be a sign that all hope of objectivity is dead on Wikipedia and it has been taken over by a liberal cabal that will stop at nothing to force their views into the encyclopedia and attack others in the process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does no one realize that deletion discussion isn’t about votes? Trillfendi (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is an easy way to put it saying "!vote". But yes, we all understand the process and the policy rationale's weight. I have cited policy. Mine was not WP:JUSTAVOTE I was initially tabling my very strong rationale so that I would not be standing in the way of a snow storm. But now some latecomers have emerged and I realize I should stay on record as a delete. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage isn’t about a “single” event, it’s about an election (you know, multiple elections happened on Tuesday) whose victor had some notoriety to her name. This isn’t an article about the act of flipping off Trump. Is it that hard? Trillfendi (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in part because the election was hyper-local, she only got 6,300 votes, and the only reason why her election received any media coverage at all is because she flipped off Trump. Denie Corbo got 52,000 votes for School Board in the same election and no press coverage at all. SportingFlyer T·C 10:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Denise Corbo didn’t have an interesting story. That’s the way the cookie crumbles. 🍪 Trillfendi (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This person has had international coverage in 2018 and 2019. Whether we like it or not, "a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it" ". There was coverage of the original event - the photo of her giving the president the finger. There was coverage in Australia of her suing her employer for being forced to resign, and of her being elected. I can assure those who say that she's just a county official, and there is always media coverage of the election of county officials, that there is not coverage of every US county official's election in Australia. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - arguably, there's been six events - the flipping, the Trump-tweeting, the firing, the suing, the campaigning, and the electing, of which all have gotten international coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Juli_Briskman&oldid=926043152"