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 as meeting WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcy Wheeler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Has been speedied a few times but I am prepared to give her an AfD. There are two incoming links. I get a strong whiff of self-promotion about this article. -- RHaworth 16:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep We've got one interview and a couple mentions that push the edge of being neglible. The Washington Post cite doesn't specifically sinlge her out, just the blog that she contributes to. That probably needs to be removed or changed drastically. Overall, I'd say it's a borderline case, though I lean towards keeping it.Chunky Rice 16:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If she were just a cub reporter covering the story, there'd be no question of non-notability. I appreciate some quarters of the press understand blogging to be some sort of world-historical development; but I'm not so sure. Or perhaps as the New York Times put it: Even the Web-savvy may ask, Fire dog what? Pop Secret 17:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess the question I have is, are we allowed to disregard press articles because we disagree with them? My understanding of WP:N is that their mere existence confers notability.Chunky Rice 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we can exercise independent judgment, with press cites being the evidence to which we apply that judgment. It surely can't be the case that Wikipedia must include an article for anyone the New York Times or the Washington Post covers. Pop Secret 17:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not? I think that if we agree that the articles are non-neglible coverage from a reliable source, we do have to include it (or, rather, not delete it). Per WP:N, notability is not subjective. That is, we shouldn't be judging whether or not the article should have been written as you seem to be. We should only evaluate the depth of the coverage and the reliability of the source. At least, that's how I read it.Chunky Rice 17:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather we should judge whether the coverage was "non-negligible" or not, right? It's a borderline case, as you mentioned, which means reasonable people will probably differ on the appropriate treatement: deletion or inclusion. We will have to await the combined wisdom of the wikipedians. Pop Secret 17:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not questioning your vote for deletion. As you noted, I think it's a borderline case. Rather, the phrasing in your comment just made my ears perk up, where you said that you appreciated that some press thought this was newsworthy, but you didn't. That's why I poked my nose in, because I disagree with that reasoning for deletion.Chunky Rice 17:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as being the first blogger credentialed for a major trial is notable and multiple sources corroborate the importance of the Firedoglake liveblogging, and even Hamsher (whom the Times paid more attention to, they've profiled her before) would say that Wheeler was the key to that coverage. e.g. "Marcy Wheeler's standout reporting for the blog was so thorough that even the mainstream media relied on it." -- the Nation, At worst, it's time to break out Firedoglake from Jane Hamsher and merge there. --Dhartung | Talk 01:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Of course Marcy Wheeler passes the notability test. The "Fire dog what" criticism is specious; it's a very well-known and trafficked site. Wheeler is not merely a blogger (on multiple sites, her home base being The Next Hurrah), she's the author of Anatomy of Deceit (January 2007), the most comprehensive and authoritative book so far on the CIA leak and Niger forgery scandal. The fact that her book has been acknowledged in connection to the coverage of this case in itself makes her notable; she's one of only a handful of political bloggers who have so far made the transition into publishing. (I'm thinking of Glenn Greenwald and David Sirota, among others, whose Wikipedia notability is unchallenged. Is it because they are men?) In addition, Wheeler broke many key details of the Libby case (including the Armitage and NIE revelations), and has been widely acknowledged by the mainstream media for leading the coverage of the trial. So what's the objection? The fact that she shed light on a scandal highly embarrassing to Republicans? That she's female? Her detractors should be honest about the repeated efforts to delist her. Obviously a number of experienced Wikipedists have tried to start this entry. While I may not like the way the entry is currently written, the claim to non-notability is unsupported in this case. —Sandover 04:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and not borderline at all. First of all if two major national newspapers covered it, its N. Second, it would be N anyway if there were any other kinds of sources. Some bloggers are N. Political ones are most likely to be N, at least as far as conventional sourcing is concerned. DGG 04:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment MW wasn't exactly the first blogger credentialed. The "Scooter Libby trial" was the first where bloggers were recognized and credentialed. But MW validated the precedent of giving credentials to bloggers. Thanks to Sandover and others for validating my perception of MW... The first two versions of the article cited MW as a major proponent of beer thirty. Beer thirty is the state of mind reached when you've had enough, it's time for a beer. The time can be approaching beer thirty, or whatever, like "It was beer thirty an hour ago". MW was the first person who I heard mention beer thirty, and I liked the phrase. I have no idea whether she was the inventor, I doubt it, mostly because it seems such an obvious concept, it must have existed for quite awhile. I realized that without any evidence of MW's priority regarding the concept, I shouldn't cite this as contributing to her notability, although for me it made her notable. --Turtlens 06:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• For your edification, I recommend to you Marcy Wheeler's "prologue to Anatomy of Deceit", where she describes the evolution of her involvement in the Plame affair.--142.68.186.200 22:12, 7 April 2007 (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.