Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara West (TV news anchor)

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. Her awards give her notability outside of the Biden event. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara West (TV news anchor)

This is a person only notable for one event. WP is not news. The controversial, political nature of the event makes neutral POV difficult. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everybody talking about same 30 seconds of TV time when you asked a crazy question doth not notability confer, no matter how many people talk about it. gnfnrf (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Joe Biden or US presidential campaign, 2008 per WP:BLP1E Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You need to be careful when invoking WP:1E. It's intended to avoid biographies on low-profile individuals who are part of a larger event, but that event doesn't center around them. So, for instance, a meteorite impact that destroys someone's house might be deserving of an encyclopedia article but the owner of the house wouldn't be. It is less aplicable when the single event is a personal achievement that propels that person to notability- Bob Beamon and Neil Armstrong are only notable for one event. So the 1E argument doesn't convince me, and I see no other problems with the article. Reyk _YO! 04:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the the 2008 United States presidential election does not center around Ms West. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her interview with Biden does, though. And that interview has been covered in several independent secondary sources. I'd also point out that sixteen years of regular TV appearances possibly qualifies her as notable under the WP:ENTERTAINER section of WP:BIO even if the interview had never happened- the Biden thing is definitely enough to put it beyond doubt. Reyk _YO! 05:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One interview is not a notable event. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number and variety of different sources provided in the article say otherwise. You may not like the fact that someone making a fool of themselves on TV can grant them notability; nor do I. But it sometimes happens, and has happened in this case. Reyk _YO! 05:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case every episode of Jerry Springer, Judge Judy, etc. would generate at least one WP bio. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idiots on Judge Judy and Jerry Springer get written up in multiple newspapers? I doubt that. Reyk _YO! 07:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That does sometimes happen. But still a single TV incident has little lasting importance. As far as I know nobody has said it will affect the outcome of the election. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WFTV After the election fervor goes back down, she'll still be working for this station as an anchor and reporter, but one controversial interview with national play doesn't take her to equal notability with say a Chuck Scarborough (Also note that she doesn't anchor the 6pm or 11pm shows for the station, so she's not a main personality, only supplemental). IMO, if she would have been out sick that day, someone else would have still done the interview and we may or may not have seen it play out like it did exactly. Nate • (chatter) 05:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with Barack Obama enemies' list. Just kidding, really. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Emmy win establishes independent notability. Needs to be expanded beyond the Biden situation. 23skidoo (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This discussion is important due to the notoriety of so called journalist Barbara West and her right wing political views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.205.178 (talk • contribs)
Keep. This notable person deserves a bio. Per Reyk WP:1E doesn't apply here. Per WP:NOT
Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories.
Which is the usual proscription against "not being a newspaper" and isn't applicable here as this is based on secondary sources. Wikipedia has an excellent reputation for absorbing current events; see the Virginia Tech massacre and all subsequent news coverage praising the work here. There are countless examples of current events covered in Wikipedia and simply saying "not a newspaper" is not an adequate argument. Steve Dufour states that "The controversial, political nature of the event makes neutral POV difficult." Does he consider that a bar against Wikipedia content? If it is controversial and difficult, then it should be excluded? Not here. The collaborative nature of Wikipedia provides the mechanism for working through POV problems. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 15:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I will cut the "controversy" down to one sentence if the article is kept. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did that, actually two sentences. If people are happy with that I will withdraw my AfD nomination as a compromise. (If not I will switch my vote from Obama to McCain.:-) ) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the forum to discuss article improvements. Nor was your attempt to unilaterally to strip the article's content without discussion. First seek consensus for change on the article's talk page. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 17:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "strip" the article. I reduced the coverage of one day in her entire life to two sentences. The sources are still there for people who are interested in the details. I also posted a note on the talk page of the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole story: You reduced the coverage to two sentences, proceeded to edit war and was subsequently banned, unfortunately. We have begun a discussion on the talk page about reducing the text to lessen its weight and hope you will participate upon your return. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on awards. However better sources are needed. Her personal bio is not acceptable for the Emmy and I could not find confirmation. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the station's website should be reliable for the awards she has won. Do you think they would lie about that? Steve Dufour (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it is written in the first person it is suspect. It needs an independent source but this is a discussion for the talk page not at AFD. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 03:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I think it is unethical for user Steve Dufour to delete/vandalize entire sections of an article and then propose the article for deletion. There are plenty of Wikipedia pages on news anchors. Her interview with Joe Biden interview has become a major story and is part of her biography now. (Independent4ever (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC));[reply]

I nominated the article for deletion then edited it to remove undue weight to the "controversy" as an attempted compromise, as I discussed here and on the article's talk page. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should have discussed it on the Talk page first. You should have discussed your intent to nominate the article for deletion and your intent to take out most of the content of the article. You can't just strip the article down to a stub and then nominate it for deletion. (Independent4ever (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC));[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I will not edit the article anymore while the AfD is open. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons mentioned above. Her husband's Republican ties are a major part of the controversy. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 18:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She seems to be notable only for the controversial Biden interview. Edit warring on the page has pushed it closer to being an attack article. Better to have an article on the interview, or mention it on the campaign article if it is that important, which I don't think it was. Borock (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has most certainly received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, many of which include biographical details unrelated to recent events. Also agree with Reyk (talk · contribs), above, and the point made by 23skidoo (talk · contribs) about the award recognition is also a valid one. Cirt (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be notable -- agreed with Cirt's points. SmallRepair (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep this article shouldn't be longer than about 200 words though, i.e. "former ms. vt, won an emmy, works at a mid-market tv station." The current campaign stuff maybe belongs, but only a sentence like "was criticized after a biden interview that the dems complained was overly partisan."Bali ultimate (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is currently a discussion at the talk page to significantly decrease the size of this section. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the article is not about the person but about an event, and perceptions of an event. And some of the versions seem to be far afield from proper use of WP. I see no way of cleaning this up short of deletion, and, after the elction, a genuine BLP. Collect (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep summarize related material to the 2008 US presidential campaign, and move the rest to appropriate related articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- even conceivably moving Biden interview's coverage to a separate article, due its demonstratable notability. Sometimes an otherwise fairly ordinary event takes on a life of its own as an important societal faction's cause célèbre.....Cf.: New Haven school Skittles incident and innumerable others of the type. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 23:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 00:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep the controversy information, she's notable worldwide for this now. I feel its also important to keep the content of her queestions, as without it, the notablility of the article is not immediately apparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.108.10 (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she was of borderline notability even if she never interviewed Biden or McCain... take a somewhat notable person, add a few thousand sources about them over one incident (actually several related incidents now), that pushes them over into outright notability. She was not a plumber prior to the controversy, she was a highly visible news anchor. --Rividian (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a keep but the page needs to be watched carefully. Trebor (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is a public figure, albeit on a mostly local level. She only recently became nationally known (for asking Joe Biden a question -- how dare she!) but regardless she would've been notable enough before that occurrence. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 20:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the article is not about the person but about an event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.191.38 (talk • contribs)

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.