Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan McArdle (2nd nomination)

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. JForget 01:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Megan McArdle

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

I initiated an AfD on this page years ago, and it appears to have a life of its own as its reanimated corpse was brought back by an admin "per request on WP:AN", whatever that means. I was hoping to see something more than what was originally here, but it's still just a biography of a non-notable blogger. They are a dime a dozen these days. This article mentions many places McArdle has been published, but none of those establish notability. There are no sources demonstrating that any articles have been written about McArdle in any notable, reliable publications, nor that she is regarded as important or widely cited. Does not meet WP:BIO. Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per request on WP:AN means someone requested it on WP:AN... I don't particularly remember this but I have restored the deleted edit history to show all the edits. No comment on notability etc. Woody (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Woody. I figured it was so long ago that it would be nigh on impossible to remember what happened. I assume someone wanted it back to work on notability. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found it I userfied it to User:MilesAgain/Sandbox who then moved it back into mainspace. User:MilesAgain is blocked as the sock of a banned user and this article was moved into mainspace after he was banned. As such I have speedied it under G5. As an aside I don't think it meets the notability requirements and I will happily recreate to allow a continued AfD but as it stands, I have deleted it to avoid process for the sake of process. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I deleted it as the product of a banned user but left it open to interpretation and someone has left a not on my talkpage contesting the notability. It doesn't harm anyone to have a full discussion so here goes... Woody (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's not just another blogger -- she's one of very few professional bloggers working for a well-respected publication. Saagpaneer (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources proving she meets WP:BIO. I cannot find any. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interview with her from the Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/seven_questions_for_megan_mcar.cfm

Here are a dozen mentions from the New Republic: http://www.tnr.com/topics/megan-mcardle

Here's New York Magazine reporting on a controversy in which she was a key figure: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/05/times_writers_bankruptcy_turni.html Saagpaneer (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's one of the most famous economics bloggers in the world. --Lask3r —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. She's a noted online commentator (sounds better than "blogger", right?) who works for The Atlantic, and has been cited in notable publications like The New York Times. I just added two more bit to the article that may help to establish notability: a re-added profile piece on her, removed because the URL was broken, now with updated URL; and a reference to her recent appearance on the TV show The Kudlow Report. Korny O'Near (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you commented (I was going to ping you today about this because I remember you from last time). I do respect your opinion, but I still don't see how she meets WP:BIO. Being a notable commentator or blogger is not enough. She has to be the subject of one or more articles in notable sources, or we need sources naming her as a recognized expert. I have actually looked, and been unable to find any such sources. I personally contribute to publications just as or more notable than McArdle, and I wouldn't even consider myself marginally notable for an encyclopedia. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spike. Compare your google footprint with hers. She brings fame to The Atlantic, not vis-versa. --Lask3r

Uh, that's not my real name. But thanks. :) --Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Where is the notability outside of blogrolls? --Lmbstl (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a follow-up comment, I must repeat my calls for reliable sources proving this person meets WP:BIO. I've seen several claims that she is an important and notable blogger, but I have yet to see any sources indicating that she has been the subject of articles in reliable publications, or that she is considered an expert. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm new to this whole article deletion thing, but as someone who has used the article on McArdle for informational purposes in the past, I'm just surprised that anyone would want to delete it. I went ahead and added some further evidence of her noteworthiness - TV appearances, media mentions, etc. Forgive me if it's clumsily done, I'm no wiki-expert.--75.145.91.229 (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep. A glance at the searches at the top of the AFD shows that other people talk about her and her work. A lot. Glittering Pillars (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this process does result in a "keep", could someone restore the article's talk page as well? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it. It looks like the consensus here is against me, but I see no reason to wait until this closes to bring back the talk page. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable by all accounts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:15, 2 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.