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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Allie Goertz

Allie Goertz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This subject is not notable. There are not enough references which contain significant coverage about the subject rather than passing mentions. Notability is not inherited. Z359q ( talk) 10:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The nom's claims are the opposite of reality. Very in-depth coverage specifically about this person from the likes of the Huffington Post, Billboard, Vice and Inverse. [1] [2] [3] [4]. How the nom, whom I notice has very limited editing history, came to the conclusion there are only "passing mentions" of this person when much of this in-depth coverage was already in the article is beyond me. There seems to be some other kind of motivation here. Oakshade ( talk) 16:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep FYI to above editor, The Huffington Post is problematic as a reliable source per numerous source discussions, but others cited are good (although Noisey is a bit "if-fy"). There is additional trade industry and mainstream recognition not cited in the article about her role as editor of Mad. Although they are nearly all tangential mentions, they cumulatively add weight to the notability argument even if they are not outright qualifying criteria. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 20:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply

The HuffPost is problematic when it comes to accuracy based on bias, just as Fox News is problematic for the same reason. They both are, however, indicative of notability to topics they decide to give coverage to as both are very popular outlets. Noisey is in fact a part of Vice (magazine) and I've corrected my text as so. Oakshade ( talk) 00:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Re-assessing Actually Noisey was merely acquired by Vice, but it is not the same thing, as content from it under it's old business model was subjected to different editorial standards. And, in fact, upon second look, I realize the article in Noisey was actually written by the subject herself, which means it's disqualified as a source lacking independent, third party recognition. This lead me to double checking Inverse. It may be a decent source, but I have my qualms about websites that solicit content ("pitch your ideas and write for us"...) See: https://www.inverse.com/about/contact . As for Huffington Post, it has problems beyond it's biases; in fact just last year they overhauled their business model after having grown to publishing over 100,000 contributors providing unvetted content without editorial control. See: https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/huffington-post-ends-unpaid-contributor-blogger-program-1202668053/. My hunch is to still lean keep in that the Billboard article has genuine merit and the subject's professional credits might meet some sort of qualifying criteria, but I'll need more time to research. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 16:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete... for now The only reliable source here is Billboard. Trillfendi ( talk) 21:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• comment Just for clarity and full disclosure to the closer and any participants of this AFD, the editor Oakshade is the original writer of this article. Z359q ( talk) 02:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that. As you are interested in "clarity and full disclosure" and your first few edits in the limited topics you've edited on demonstrate advanced wiki-editing knowledge, can you please disclose what account you are or have also edited as? Oakshade ( talk) 03:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep - If anyone has a problem with this article, the WP:TOOSOON standard might make a little sense. But even though she doesn't have a heck of a lot of media notice, the above arguments about reliable sources from "Keep" voters are much more convincing that the nominator's claim of non-notability. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 16:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment. While I think that DOOMSDAYER520 might be right in his argument, the question really is, whether for a musician / artist the sources available are satisfying or not. I don't have much experience with the specifics of artists yet, but to me it seems that they are not met. Talking about the quality of sources is good, but even if one is valid (which Billboard seems to be) it doesn't seem like there are "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself". -- Ruhri Jörg 10:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Question Can this subject’s role as Mad Magazine editor be clarified? The source cited here is a blog based apparently on the subjects own social media post. Yet the Magazine’s own press release cites Bill Morrison as the editor, backed up by a story in Washington Post (see: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2018/06/29/a-new-editor-a-new-home-but-mad-magazine-still-takes-sharp-aim-at-trump-and-roseanne/?utm_term=.c89424edb6ea). Allie Goertz is not mentioned in either. It may be she has a junior staff position (along with many other people) that includes the word “editor” in a job description, but for notability purposes, unless one is the overall editor (which may be the case with Bill Morrison?) it likely isn’t enough to count. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 16:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Looking more closely, she is an editor, but not the senior editor. Oakshade ( talk) 23:01, 30 January 2019 (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.