Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Valenti

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Valenti

Wikipedia:Notability (people) advises that a person meets the notability threshold if she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of her. I'm not sure that Valenti is the subject of any of the cited sources in this article. There are reviews of her book (and a Q&A with her qua the book's author), the subject of which is the book, not its author. There are articles written by her, but while wags might suggest she is their subject, they are not intellectually independent. That seems to leave WP:CREATIVE, and so far as I can see, none of its tests appear to be met either. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent but leaning towards weak keep. WP:BIO says "multiple, independent sources"; I can find one (the Guardian, a British national newspaper) that has chosen to publish an article about her. It's also by her, as Simon Dodd says. Overall I think she's marginal on notability. Having said that, while I'm mindful of WP:GOOGLE, 139,000 google hits (most or all of which are about this Jessica Valenti) is indicative of a relatively strong web presence. Thus "Jessica Valenti" strikes me as a likely search term on Wikipedia, which in turn suggests to me that we should think fairly hard before deleting.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't googling a name without quotation marks overinclusive, producing get hits that include just "Jessica" and just "Valenti," or the two used independently of one another? Googling with quotation marks around the name brings back only 49,000 results ([1]). Could you link to the Guardian article you found? I see columns that she's written for the Grauniad, but not a column about her.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's this one: [2]. I think it's essentially about her (in the sense that it's about her book and her world view). This may make me a "wag". :-)--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the byline. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I acknowledged that above. I think it's by her and essentially about her. :-) --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC) -- (later) -- I should clarify that, I think. What's interesting to me is that the Guardian has given her voice on something other than the letters page.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I missed the note in your comment abouve about it having been self-penned. Apologies.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you want sources specifically about Valenti, I only needed about 30 seconds to find interviews in Salon, New York magazine, and The Colbert Report. There's probably more, too, but that was enough to convince me. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also confused as to why an author shouldn't talk about their own work. Your job is a big part of your life, y'know? If I were being interviewed by somebody, we'd probably spend a fair bit of time on my career... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, also. Who said she couldn't talk about her work? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Valenti is a major figure to young feminists. Feministing is one of the biggest liberal blogs out there, and she has had an extensive amount of media coverage. I just added several sources about Valenti specifically. To be frank, I'm very surprised this was nominated. Valenti has not lacked for media coverage. RMJ (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's sufficient media coverage within the scope of WP:BIO, then fair enough - I do just want to address the point that because Feministing is notable (I assume that it is), that's an argument against this nomination, though. One of the biggest blogs on the right is RedState, but that doesn't bootstrap its founders and principals Erick Erickson or Mike Krempasky into being independently notable. Similarly, Protein Wisdom is notable enough to be included, but its equivalent to Valenti, Jeff Goldstein isn't (that link is a redirect to the PW article), and for a somewhat amusing demonstration that the knife cuts both ways, cf. Atrios (blogger is notable) with Eschaton (his blog is not independently notable). Is contributing to something that is notable usually thought an independent basis for notability? Certainly she may have done other things to establish notability, and I don't doubt your word on the point, but I don't buy that simply founding and writing for a blog by itself meets the notability threshold.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valenti's career has been more of a boon to Feministing than the other way around - the blog didn't even have a page until a few days ago (I created it). I actually had a difficult time finding articles that talked about Feministing as much as Valenti. She's published a few different books that have been well-covered by the media.

Have you looked at my new references? I include links to articles on her and her work from the New York Times, the Huffington Post, and Gothamist. I think they do a great deal to establish that she (and her work independent of Feministing as much as with the blog) are notable. The article has six independent sources (NYT, Huffington Post, Colbert Report, Salon, AlterNet, NYMag) that significantly cover both her and her work directly and in detail.

I'm a little wary of your arguments regarding other blog editors, but I see where you're coming from. However, with Protein Wisdom, Goldstein does not contribute as widely as Valenti. Valenti's status at Feministing is part of a collaborative effort, and Valenti has a great deal of other contributions: books, articles and media appearances. I think that a better analogy is Ana Marie Cox. Cox was also the founding editor of a widely known blog,[ Wonkette, who grew from her success there to further notable projects. RMJ (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Per WP:BIO, she "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in her specific field," her expertise being feminist theory, young feminists and feminist blogging; and per WP:CREATIVE, she is "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by her peers." She writes opinion pieces for notable publications AlterNet, Salon.com, and The Guardian, which attests to her notability. She is frequently quoted in notable publications in articles about feminism and blogging (and feminist blogging), see 'Miranda complex' hits US women, Casting doubts about Dowd on fall of feminism, NOW at 40: What's left to do?, At a computer near you, 'Mommy makeover' book draws fire from feminists, What we need is an f-word revolution, Op-Ed Columnist: A Virginal Goth Girl, Wal-Mart Yanks Pink 'Credit Card' Panties Off Racks, The 'Online estrogen revolution', and many more, found from a simple Google news search. She has attracted the attention of notable critics Glenn Sacks and the National Review Online. She has had speaking engagements at various colleges and universities - Lecture at Drury University, Carol Ortman Perkins Lectureship: Jessica Valenti, Lecture at Simmons College, and keynote speaker for the College's 2009 Women's Month celebrations, and others. She's been profiled in the New York Times and The Gothamist. And I think that all of the various interviews she's done about her books also help to prove notability - I think that saying that she isn't the subject of these interviews is kind of splitting hairs. Dawn Bard (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the others. As the old adage goes, do your research then start making claims about notability, or you'll look like a git. Rebecca (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Comment immediately above contains excellent advice. Geo Swan (talk) 07:16, 31 January 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.