Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily VanDerWerff

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. A bit of a borderline case perhaps, but the people who have discussed the existing sources have come to the unrebutted conclusion that they are not substantial enough to base an article on. Sandstein 10:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emily VanDerWerff

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

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

An essentially run-of-the mill journalist. The one source provided is ok (in case anyone is confused, the source refers to the subject under her previous name, but a bit of googling makes it clear it is the same person) although not particularly in depth, but there is very little else. Often at an AFD, as a nominator, one has to try to work out what an article could look like if properly fleshed out and with the best available sources added, and see if it still fails the GNGs. In this case I don't have to because a draft is available here Draft:Emily_VanDerWerff with substantially more detail and sources and, per the very thorough analysis by Worldbruce these are still not adequate. Despite that, I still did my own WP:BEFORE and naturally as a journalist her name appears in a lot of articles but the vast majority are by her, and those that are not are film review round-up type articles that are simply mentioning her because of an opinion she gave about a film. Simply, fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Hug^syrup 09:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 09:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 09:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Too soon (if ever). People doing their jobs does not make them notable. David notMD (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vox (website) per Worldbruce's comment on the draft (which a totally different user created). When VanDerWerff meets GNG, we'll publish the draft. Until then, I think redirecting the page to the publication she mainly writes for (as of this comment) works. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the draft article, not the stub. It's a bit borderline, but I think it establishes notability. Oppose redirection in any context given that she's at least as if not more notable for her work with the AV Club. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is never enough to pass GNG, especially when the source uses the person more as a case study than anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: tagging MaggieGlass as creator to encourage them to comment. Emily is probably not notable just as a journalist; being competent in your field is not the standard for notability. the best case for notability would be as transgender, but the draft is written like a normal bio, so I don't think the author intended to highlight that. And if that's the case, in the case of a borderline BLP, I think its better not to have the article at this time.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment tagging Zoya888 as draft creator in the same vein. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vox (website). Now there isn't enough verifiable content to keep this as a separate article. Ambrosiawater (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note here that I oppose redirection to Vox, and even more strongly oppose merging. Merging implies, at the very least, a paragraph about her at the vox article but I see no evidence that she is a particularly notable contributor at a magazine full of interesting contributors, so this would be unjustified weight. A redirect is almost as bad partly because, as referenced above, Vox is by no means the only publication she has ever worked at (or will ever work at) and partly because it simply doesn't seem reasonable or sustainable that the names of non-notable individuals should be redirected to the articles of their employers. Hug^syrup 08:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also chiming in with the same. It's pretty clear she's not most notable for her work at Vox, which would pretty clear to anyone who'd done any checks at all before !voting. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of current sources of the article provide " significant coverage" of Emily VanDerWerff. Cinadon36 22:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's two reliable and in-depth sources in the article right now about the subject. That meets at least bare notability for me. Bearian (talk) 14:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1) This is not in-depth.

https://www.indiewire.com/2014/06/a-v-club-exodus-continues-as-todd-vanderwerff-becomes-voxs-first-culture-editor-126378/

This is about a third of the article right here:

"But in the meantime, it’s worth noting that this is the third major defection from the A.V. Club in the last year: Staffers Nathan Rabin, Tasha Robinson and Genevieve Koski, along with prolific freelancer Noel Murray, left to found the Dissolve with former film editor Scott Tobias and former editor Keith Phipps last June; managing editor Kyle Ryan left in April to join Entertainment Weekly; and now VanDerWerff will be gone by the end of next week. (Disclosure: I write for the Dissolve and worked with every person mentioned in this paragraph during their time at the A.V. Club.)"

2) Interview/talk, not independent coverage.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/09/731044423/the-handmaid-s-tale-and-coming-out-as-transgender Ҥ (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2020 (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.