Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Klippenstein

Ken Klippenstein

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Ken Klippenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not notable Murrell B (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I have presented arguments on the article's talk page, but will copy them over here.

Refuting each citation in accordance w/ Wikipedia:BIO and Wikipedia:BASIC.

1. This is coverage of a story written by Klippenstein, not coverage of Klippenstein. The MSN article is a tertiary source. Per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Tertiary it is fine to use this source as confirmation that Klippenstein is a genuine Washington correspondent for the National, but it does not meet the standard for indicating notability. This is because it does not provide any research regarding Klippenstein himself, rather his work.
2. This entry is a database (tertiary source, again) listing Klippenstein's contributions. Again, this list is fine for what it is being used to prove, but it does not constitute notability because it is not "significant coverage" or a secondary source.
3. The talent page https://tyt.com/about/talent does not even feature Klippenstein, you clearly had to find this source elsewhere. And again, the profile of a minor contributor to a television program does not constitute significant coverage, nor is it to be considered intellectually independent of Klippenstein (he probably provided his own bio).
4. This is the only source that I would consider to be meeting the standards laid out in Wikipedia:BIO because, it is a relatively significant, and probably independent of Klippenstein.
5. Again, a citation isn't coverage of the subject.
6. Two sentence bio. All journalists have these, and they are usually hastily written and not to be considered scholarly sources.
7. Citation is not coverage of a subject. If this were a profile or interview of Klippenstein about his work, it would maybe scrape past. But it isn't.
8. This is basically the same as the previous item. Both are tertiary sources.
9. This is another summary of the same topic as item 1, which is more noteworthy than this one because MSN is (kind of) a national publication. WKSU serves only a small metropolitan area within Ohio.
10. Borderline, but an article about a twitter beef, in which Klippenstein is the minor party, doesn't scream "significant coverage."

Only one of your citations is reliable and independent of the subject, this does not constitute "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources." Saying "All that is required for subject-specific notability" betrays the fact that "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" is a high standard, let alone " [...] reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," which your citations do not adequately meet. I apologise for the formatting, I have no idea how to indent numbered lists. Murrell B (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

While I appreciate your efforts in pointing out these deficiencies in the sources, such deficiencies in the first draft of an article on the very day it's created are not really an argument for the subject to be considered not notable or for the article to be deleted. Let's exercise a level head and give the article time to address these issues. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Vote: Keep, with extensive edits. I appreciate Murrell B's work in pointing out the deficiencies in the citations in (apparently) the first draft of this article. It's clear enough that someone isn't taking it very seriously with the old, unlicensed photo that's going to be deleted. Nonetheless, Ken is a prominent journalist with 291,000 followers on Twitter. I'll grab some more acceptable sources and modify this to be more like the pages of other living journalists. Emoprog (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: As the original author, I did not include the photo of Klippenstein and concur that an explicitly free-for-reuse one should be used instead. I welcome any additional sources to enrich the article and deliver it from stub-status. QRep2020 (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Weak keep per WP:JOURNALIST. He's widely-enough cited by his peers. Brycehughes (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to have a pretty decent amount of sources (most seem weakly reliable but there's good ones in there), I'm imagining the article was much worse when nominated. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 23:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep He's a notable and cited journalist. Improve the page instead of deleting it. North Carolina Man (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. It's worth disclosing that I was directed to this deletion discussion from Ken's twitter feed. Ken's broken some major news stories for multiple outlets over the years. While it's not the most notable thing in the world, he's attached to many important stories concerning whistleblowers in american government. He's at least notable enough, for The Independent, a major newspaper, to spend an entire op-ed complaining about him. The simple justification of "not notable" provided by the proposal doesn't really address what standards they think he's failing to meet. The secondary sources already cited in the article seem to meet general wiki standards of notability. i kan reed (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)