Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Gilbert

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 23:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Gilbert

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable author, COI concerns as article was written by her husband. GlassCobra 17:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely unnotable, even by her own husband's note: "I wrote this entry to provide a public forum for her biography, which currently only exists on her own site"[1]. The two "sources" listed on the talk page are two of her own websites for her books and her blogging at the Huffington Post about her ovarian cancer is not any evidence of notability. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:N -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, and with all due respect, Allison did not blog about having ovarian cancer. She blogged about the lead-up her surgery that helped her prevent this horrible disease.--Markweintraub (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ with option to revisit in 1–3 months. The article is very new, and the information presented on the talk page shows that even if she isn't notable as a writer (yet), she's notable as a TV producer, since she's won an Emmy. I think cleanup and expansion is the proper course for the article. However, if 1–3 months down the road the article isn't any better, I would support a new AfD and would be leaning toward delete at that point. —C.Fred (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She did not win an Emmy Award, she won a New York Emmy, an entirely different, local, and thoroughly unnotable award. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the New York Emmy is a regional award given by the New York regional chapter of NATAS. I would not call it thoroughly unnotable, but I don't give it the same weight as a national Emmy, either. —C.Fred (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason the COI issues can't be resolved via the discussion process going on at the talk page; the article isn't unsalvageably bad. While local Emmy awards often aren't sufficient to satisfy notability requirements, the New York media market is so large, prominent, and competitive that its awards can't be smmarily disregarded. As C.Fred accurately argues, there are enough indications of notability to gove this a chance and reexamine it down the road if necessary. The article was only created four hours ago, after all. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice (offer to userfy, if anybody besides her husband volunteers). (Contrary to the delusions of some people east of the Hudson, New York City is not the hub of the universe.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is a bio at CBS which mentions some achievements and the NY Times mentions her book as reason for starting some help groups, so there might be some notability here. Regards So Why 23:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is self-made publicity allowed to establish notability? The CBS Show "article" is clearly a press release, and only mentions her in passing. The NY Times one is not significant coverage of her as much as it is her group. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think sufficient coverage exists despite any COI issues (which can be resolved through the usual editorial processes). JBsupreme (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite my obvious COI, please check her latest article (new as of 12/2/09 on the Huffington Post as examples of recent coverage. * Parentless Parents on the Huffington Post Markweintraub (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She WROTE that blog post - that is not coverage OF her. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Earlier in this discussion, the issue was notability, which is why I called out the Huffington Post article from yesterday. Markweintraub (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see that Gilbert passes WP:BIO as either an author, a blogger or a TV Producer. If she really had won an actual Emmy that would be different, indeed a few days ago I nearly !voted keep here as I (as was probably the intention) had been taken in by the failure in her own promo material (which is the bulk of her Ghits), to differentiate between the local New York Emmy that she won and a proper one. Nancy ^talk 14:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The CoI issues are not an insurmountable problem (other editors can work to get NPOV), but the fact that she does not seem to pass WP:BIO is - all the sources which I can find seem to be either written directly by her, to come from press releases, or to be about her group. I can't find significant coverage about her from independent, reliable sources. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The latest "references" added to the article have all been grasping at straws: Susie Bright's blog post about one book and a writing for a history class (albeit 400-level) about the other. I'm beginning to have doubts of whether there's sufficient independent coverage of the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Nancy has good points, and the rest are right too. This article is not notable Cynof Gavuf 11:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- Clearly COI and the article may have been written for the wrong reasons, but she does have a non-fiction book out and presumably available in libraries. I'd also suggest that blogging for the Huffington Post is not like writing for your own personal blog--don't they choose "experts" in various fields (I don't know--please correct me if I'm wrong)....Vartanza (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a book doesn't make her notable nor is its availability in any library. And being a journalist/blogger is also not a notability criteria by itself. The only people talking about her are herself and her husband. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For information: WorldCat shows the following figures for the number of libraries holding her books:

Always Too Soon: Voices of Support for Those Who Have Lost Both Parents

UK: 1 library
Canada: 4 libraries
Australia: 8 libraries
US: 285 libraries (i.e. on average 6 libraries per state)

Covering Catastrophe: Broadcast Journalists Report September 11

UK: 1 library
Canada: 5 libraries
Australia: 6 libraries
US: 443 libraries (i.e. on average 9 libraries per state)

Even if this was American Wikipedia rather than English Language Wikipedia, I'd still suggest that these figures do not equate to a high level of holdings (For comparison, Black Holes by Heather Couper - a children's book I chose at random, published in 1996 - is held at 25 UK libraries, 6 Canadian libraries, 87 Australian libraries and 900 US libraries; Death by black hole : and other cosmic quandaries by Neil deGrasse Tyson, published 2007: held by 5 UK libraries, 13 Canadian libraries, 28 Australian libraries and 1161 US libraries) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I look over the WorldCat listings, I see that one or both (usually both) of her books are held by major academic libraries, including Yale, Harvard, Cornell, Columbia, and Duke; I think that's more significant than the exact number of local public libraries with copies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really...most Uni libraries have more space to hold all sorts of books the public ones, which have to be more selective to conserve space. Many of the largest ones, such as those listed, make a fairly decent effort to grab at least one copy of pretty much every non-fiction book printed and released. Either way, which libraries and how many holdings they have are still irrelevant to notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my experience, and it hasn't been that long since I was sending people to hunt down library copies of books for various reasons. And I doubt that while major universities are reducing financial aid, hiring, etc. they're indiscriminately stocking their libraries with one copy of everything. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, they don't by one copy of everything (exaggeration), however they do generally buy most newer books in certain areas if they correspond with their colleges such as Children's Educational (one of her books). Her other work, Covering Catastrophe: Broadcast Journalists Report September 11, she is not the author of, but one of FIVE editors, and basically is a series of stories and snippets from many reporters, including Larry King, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, etc. That would be reason to have it in libraries, not Ms. Gilbert's being one of its editors. All they have to do is give it to the uni library, and it will likely be stocked. Not all books in a library are purchased. Publishers frequently gift out copies to major libraries to get them on the shelves. Very common publicity method. Uni libraries also allow patrons to make purchase requests, which are usually honored. You can't make the claim that because Yale has a copy that it is somehow so notable they went and bought one because they just had to have it. Without actual reliable sources stating anything, there is no way to confirm that a - they have the book, and b - how and why it was acquired. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First off -- I want to thank each and every one of you who have taken the time to comment on this article. It's given me a window into the rigor that goes into each article's discussion. While I see the merits of both sides here, I'd be remiss if I didn't add further support to the article, COI or not, with a number of links that further demonstrate the coverage Allison and her books have gotten. But before I do, it's worth clarifying Allison's role in Covering Catastrophe. While it's been depicted above as snippets and stories, it remains the definitive oral history of how broadcast journalists covered 9/11. Allison conceived of the idea; she organized the group of editors and wrote the introduction. While the September 11 Memorial & Museum is still under construction, Covering Catastrophe has already been chosen to be in its permanent collection. There is not yet an on-line link that supports this point. In addition, the US State Department turned Covering Catastrophe into a video that was distributed to every US embassy around the world. Again, there's no link to this effect, but the video does exist.

I'm not sure whether to put these links on the article itself -- or to just list them here. My apologies if I'm violating Wiki protocols by placing them in this forum.

American Journalism Review article about Covering Catastrophe.

Library Journal write-up of Always Too Soon - along with supporting editor Christina Baker Kline - who has an article on Wikipedia

WCBS-TV interview -- following her on-air appearance.

Los Angeles Daily News interview.

New York's 92nd Street Y listing of a speaking event where Allison spoke alongside Geraldine Ferraro and Mariel Hemmingway

FOX NY Interview RE: Always Too Soon. Markweintraub (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CNN interview transcript -- Allison being interviewed about Always Too Soon. Markweintraub (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these, Mark. I'll comment on them below:

American Journalism Review: This confirms that she edited and contributed to it. This does not give information *about* Allison, beyond the fact that she conceived and contributed to the book (which no one is disputing) and that she is a WNBC producer (again, no one disputes this)
Library Journal: Again, this is about the book more than Allison. The only information is provides which could be used in the article are that she was a CNN producer, that she initiated the idea for the book and that she interviewed people for the book. It doesn't particularly give information about *her*
WCBS-TV: Again, it's about the book, not about her. It gives us the information (again) that she inititated the book, as well as the fact that it was connected with the death of her father.
LA Daily News: Again, it's about the book - not her. It gives us the information about her parents, brother and husband, but beyond that nothing that could be used in an article about *her*
92nd Street Y: Advertising an event where she was involved. The only useable information about her is "Emmy Award-winning producer for CNN"
Fox NY: Unless I missed anything, the entire interview was about the book - nothing about Allison herself was discussed here.
CNN: Again, this doesn't provide information about Allison herself, beyond the facts of the loss of her parents.

In summary, although they may be interesting reading, they do not provide information about Allison herself - and this article is about her, not her parents, not the book.

Thanks for your input here, Mark - we do appreciate it. However, I am still not convinced that this article should be kept in Wikipedia -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Thank you for having a look at these supporting links; it's clear you've spent time with them -- and I appreciate the consideration. With all due respect, I'm not clear how you can separate the book from the person. Without the person, there is no book. It's Allison who was interviewed on CNN, CBS, FOX, the LA Daily News and spoke at the 92nd Street Y alongside Ferraro and Hemmingway. The AJR and LJ reviews are included here to support the notability of Covering Catastrophe, which, in turn, supports Allison. There was a question about links to other articles -- which has been addressed by linking back and forth with co-editors Mitchell Stephens and Melinda Murphy - both of whom are the subject of articles here. Markweintraub (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Mitchell Stephens, you will see that he is notable as a professor at NYU (generally, most professors at major universities are notable). If you look at Melinda Murphy , you will see that she is notable as a journalist who received a few Emmys (not New York Emmy ones, but national ones). They are not notable just for a couple of books they have written. If the book is important, then perhaps it is notable enough for an article of its own (I don't personally think it is, but I haven't looked into the book, but into Allison). If the book is the notable thing, its author isn't automatically notable - authors need to be notable in their own right. Looking at Wikipedia's Guidelines on notability for people:

"Any biography": Generally, a person is notable if:

The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field

I don't feel that Allison meets this criteria

"Creative professionals (includes authors and journalists)": a person is notable if:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

Again, I don't feel that Allison meets this criteria.

As for the book, under the Notability guidelines for books, I do not feel it meets the criteria for inclusion - however, even if it does, that does not mean that Allison required an article herself - at most, the book would need an article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notability distinction between book and author. That's helpful. Looking at the 'any biography' criteria I'd ask you to reconsider. It's been established here that a New York Emmy isn't a national Emmy. I'd still argue that winning three of them establishes 'notable award or honor.' And the "... widely recognized contribution to being part of the historical record..." piece is covered by her book's inclusion in the permanent collection at the 9/11 Museum -- which is quite literally the historic record. Add to that the U.S. State Department video. And to be clear, I have not questioned why Murphy or Stephens are included here. Their qualifications are notable. I only brought them up in this forum to demonstrate the link qualifier that's on the article now.Markweintraub (talk) 18:12, 8 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.