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. Secret ^account 01:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Alison Rosen

Alison Rosen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

The second AfD was closed early and the article was speedily deleted under criterion G4. This decision was subsequently overturned at DRV. decltype ( talk) 12:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- this was deleted just a couple of weeks ago, and there's no more evidence of notability now than there was then -- the vast majority of references are to her own articles, and the few that aren't by her get us nowhere near to extensive coverage in multiple independent sources. Cute, but not notable. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 18:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- There are a number of sources referencing her as winning journalism and comedy awards, appearing on multiple nationally televised programs, and holding prestigious positions at a variety of publications. Other references that some claim are simply "references to her own articles" prove she has written for very notable publications and has covered very notable personalities - making a strong case for notability. I fear your lack of familiarity with someone nationally known for television and journalism is biasing your opinoin and would note that comments like "Cute, but not notable" add nothing to the discussion. Karpaydm ( talk) 19:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I invite you to specify which of the references currently on the article constitute "extensive coverage" as required by WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT ( talk) 13:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note how Karpaydm mentioned awards. Those can make person notable. In that case you only need to verify the information. The amount of coverage you're asking for is only needed when the coverage itself is supposed to establish notability. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete and salt. Miserably fails WP:CREATIVE. Almost all sources are WP:SELFPUB, and the rest do not pass WP:RS or WP:V to the extent that notability is established. Article has been recreated several times after having been deleted through AfD's and CSD's, and should be protected against re-creation to save us all the trouble of a fourth AfD. SnottyWong talk 02:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Please note that this is only the second time this article has been listed. The first time (not my contribution) it had woefully inadequate references (blogs, you tube). This second version was written by myself and was speedy deleted for being "too similar to the original" which the deletion review determined was unfair since it had been considerably altered from the original version. Surely you don't SALT a topic because someone went through hours and hours of research in order to replace the original, unacceptable article with a legitimate and unbiased article. - Karpaydm| ^(talk)

• I don't think salting is necessary. If it's deleted, I'm very confident Karpaydm won't recreate it. She might well become notable at some point. I don't think an award from the Orange County Press Club gets her there, but if she gets more awards and/or becomes the subject of significant coverage then fine. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 11:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• FYI, the Orange County awards were to establish her success early in her career. Also note that the reference is an LA Times piece where the LA Times apparently thought it was important enough that they wrote an article about their own authors that won those same awards. She also won an award for New York's Funniest Reporter in 2008. See references 21 and 22 http://www.nyfunniestreporter.com/2008_Recap.html and http://www.stagetimemag.com/standup/?p=3677. I am guessing this doesn't mean anything on the notability scale to you, but she also has an IMDB page, is a "Verified Twitter Celebrity", and has her own iPhone application. She also has done about 10 commentaries for biographies on the A&E channel. Seriously, how can all of these others sources that determine notoriety not be enough for a supposedly open/free information service like Wikipedia. As the other "keep" vote below pointed out, why is this so hard? Because the delete voters don't know her? Karpaydm —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC). reply

• Weak delete A lot of articles only mention this person in passing and the articles by Rosen herself give no indication if she was a regular staff writer or a freelancer for said publications (which makes a huge difference). One article in People is not enough to draw on its notability to establish yourself as a noteworthy writer. There is no indication how important the award mentioned is. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Added that she was a staffer (not a freelancer) at People and highlighted numerous articles with numerous top celebrities. Also, how does one indicate the importance of an award? - Karpaydm| ^(talk)

• Delete no evidence the situation has changed substantially since the AFD less than 3 weeks ago. Recommend SALTing until a rock-solid (and preferably COI-free) userspace draft is presented, so we don't have to go through this every 3 weeks from here on out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Again, there was one original article (not by me) that was terrible. It was deleted. I rewrote it after extensive research and it was speedy deleted unfairly as determined by the deletion review. So this is only the second article about Rosen and the first legitimate and unbiased version. I also think that the controversy that was sparked by her interview with Ed Koch was not highlighted enough until I revised the article today. Finally, I assume COI means "Conflict of Interest". Please explain the conflict of interest. - Karpaydm| ^(talk)

• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources presented in the article are mostly passing mentions. Trivial coverage does not allow an individual to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people). Cunard ( talk) 23:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Which sources are unreliable? As far as your claim of "trivial coverage" goes, typically journalists (even when really famous) are not "talked about" in other sources. They are notable because of the publications they write for, the television programs they are on, and the subjects they cover in both genres. I am guessing you are familiar with ESPN television journalist Dan Patrick and have no problem with his page existing, yet his page has no references "about him". However, in this case Rosen became quite well known for her coverage of Ed Koch and I added numerous third party sources citing as much Karpaydm| ^(talk) 8:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I don't understand why people go out of their way to try and delete peoples pages for no apparent reason. This page isn't hurting anyone. She's written for multiple mainstream publications and has appeared on multiple television programs. It's not taking food out of anyones childrens mouths by having this page up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.14.111.39 ( talk) 16:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete but Do Not Salt Article recreated once doesn't approach salting threshold for me, particularly where subject has a reasonable shot at achieving notability at some point (as opposed to a deceased subject, for example). Vartanza ( talk) 03:33, 7 December 2009 (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.