Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:11, 11 March 2014

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: redirect to RT (TV network)#Presenters, December 2 2013, see discussion. redirect to RT (TV network)#Programming, December 13 2012, see discussion.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance). Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Abigail Martin page were merged into Abby Martin. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Abby Martin (January 14, 2014). "Breaking the Set". RT. Archived from the original on January 14, 2014. Retrieved January 14, 2014. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; January 20, 2014 suggested (help)

Additional coverage

I was going to criticize the recreation so soon after deletion and AfDs, but with it looks like the subject now has a valid claim. If there is any future coverage of the after-effects, I think Notability would be a slam dunk. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say this tips the balance to clear notability. There has been continuing coverage of her, and this adds to it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I support the unprotection of the target name so that the draft can be moved into article space. Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• I also support the unprotection of the target name so that the draft can be moved into article space.--Rickbrown9 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• I also support the unprotection of the target name so that the draft can be moved into article space. Mentions by both NBC and Huffpost—in combination with her existing presence in web culture and alternative media venues—seem to support Ms. Martin's encyclopedic notability.

Personally, I feel it would have been nice if readers of the NBC and Huffpost articles who desired to learn more about Ms. Martin had had a convenient centralized encyclopedic source of information about her to turn to—i.e. a Misplaced Pages article. I find it sad (ironic?) that such an opportunity had been declined just days earlier.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

yes it is sad/ironic that the admin did not have a crystal ball to know that Russia would send troops to Ukraine and that Martin would use the event for a soapbox that would get picked up by NBC. The level of psychic aptitude among the admin class is sorely lacking and a pure disgrace to the mop. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

She didn't use anything as a soapbox, and I don't believe NBC picked up the story first. As most of the sources make clear, she was already notable for her work before this story was published. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• TRPoD, Hasteur is not an admin. Perhaps you meant "reviewer". Anyway, regardless, I find it sad that an article which appeared to me to be de facto notable—and most likely de jure notable as well—on 28 Feb. was glibly dismissed when had it instead been accepted at that time it would have been well poised to support inquiring readers when Ms. Martin received even further notoriety just days later in international media.

I greatly appreciate it when upon encountering names or terms which are new to me in both media and general life Misplaced Pages provides me with further details and associated links in an advert free openly referenced format. So much so that I'm inclined to prioritize sharing the experience with others.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I also support unprotection of the target name. Even if I am incorrect that the recent coverage tips the balance to clear notability (thus adding to continuing coverage of her), still that discussion can occur following re-creation of the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• The protecting admin has lifted the protection. A new page move discussion appears at the bottom of this page. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Is there a way to facilitate a 'speedy inclusion'? Regarding Draft talk:Abby Martin#Additional coverage. It seems that administrative support is needed to free up the article name in mainspace. A reworked version of the article Abby Martin—with improved referencing—was declined 28 Feb. 2014 with little or no specific explanation. Then just days later Ms. Martin was featured in articles by both NBC and the Huffington Post. --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please close this RFC? It is not necessary and is generally not used for this purpose. I am filing a requested move right now as the target has been unprotected. We need an admin to perform housekeeping by deleting the target to make way for the move. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I 'commented out' the RfC tag. It seems redundant to the move-to-mainspace proposal at this point and no longer particularly useful. --Kevjonesin (talk) 07:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I restored the tag as per my comment in the following page section. --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I 'commented out' the RfC tag, again, now that the page has been moved to mainspace. --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment the version currently in the draft is not much different from the version rejected by AfC on 28 Feb the only substantive change being the inclusion of the 3 March on-air condemnation of Russia. If that's the basis of moving this, then it is a WP:ONEEVENT article, and the outburst could instead be covered in the RT article. WP:BLP1E. That 3 March addition also makes up the bulk of the Breaking the Set article, making that one potentially a 1E article as well. If the AfC review was wrong, why hasn't this been resubmitted with a rebuttal statement to AfC? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Nope. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy and there are multiple ways to get an article into mainspace. The AfC was reviewed for three seconds by a user who has been admonished by arbcom for their participation at AfC, and who said earlier this year that they would no longer involve themselves there. They do not appear to have read nor reviewed the article, as their AfC rationale was completely divorced from reality (the problems with the original version at AfD were addressed, and the article bears no similarity whatsoever to that version). As for the recent expansion of the Breaking the Set article, its creation and expansion are solely due to the former protection of the Abby Martin title, which has now been lifted. We certainly do not need two articles at this point, and most of the sources are about Abby Martin, not just her show, and she is notable for being an artist, filmmaker, and author, as well as a radio and television host. Furthermore, much of the 1E coverage you refer to actually talks about much more than this event, for example, the NYT coverage today, which talks about her involvement in the 9/11 truth movement, and the Greenwald coverage which talks about her role as a lone journalist who speaks truth to power surrounded by the corporate and government influenced U.S. and Russian media. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• To me, it seems clear that the additional news coverage in recent days establishes her notability. I thought that the redirect to the show was the best solution previously. I support a neutral, well-referenced biography now. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 04 March 2014

The request to rename this article to Abby Martin has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Draft:Abby Martin → Abby Martin – Per the above discussion noting new sources and a recent rewrite, there is a new consensus to move the draft version into article namespace to a now unprotected target currently existing as a redirect in order to preserve the page history, which should already be part of the draft version ready for moving. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's policy on article titles.

• Support. This article is much improved over the article that was the subject of the most recent AfD. That article had only four footnotes, and moreover was prior to extensive media coverage of the subject in relation to Crimea.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support, seems clear-cut; don't see any need to go through any extra bureaucratic rigmarole (e.g. resubmission to AfC). I would have voted to keep if I had been aware of the deletion discussion, which seems like a typical example of deletionist tomfoolery. -- Visviva (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Good draft, ready for mainspace, where work can continue. bd2412 T 02:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Article was already pretty decently sourced, but recent events have made it clear the subject is notable. —Torchiest _edits 04:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Her notability is obvious, and has been for some time. The only valid reason for not giving her an article before, was poor sourcing, which has been rectified. --Rob (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Addition of (more) non-RT 3rd party mainstream references is now complete.--Rickbrown9 (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• I have not reviewed all the sources, and while some are clearly self-published and would not themselves support notability, it appears that there is enough overall to support notability. So I would not have a problem restoring the article (although I reserve the right to change my mind if someone does a more thorough review of the sources than I have time for right now and convinces me that they are still deficient). Rlendog (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. From a brief overview, I think the article has been improved to the point that it now demonstrates notability. It's not perfect (some weak citations), but in relative terms also does not warrant deletion. --gilgongo (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support I ended up here because I looked up her name today (because if her little rant). I'm sure there are 100s more who want to know more than her name on a list. 174.19.174.204 (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support While taken individually some of the references may be of moderate quality I think that when they are taken in context in aggregate as a whole they more than suffice to demonstrate notability. Especially when bolstered by Ms. Martin's recent wave of increased notoriety in global media. However, unless a qualified admin suddenly 'swoops in to save-the-day' by making the technical changes required for a smooth transition from Draft to Mainspace, I think that at this point presenting a case for Deletion Review may be the best way to proceed. As per discussion below. --Kevjonesin (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The article looks perfectly fine to me to be moved to main space and improved from there. Optimale 15:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Although I don't have a dog in this fight as far as the various arguments go, and I already found out who she is in a previous incarnation before it was (wrongfully IMHO) deleted, I don't want people like 174.19.174.204 to run into the information through some discussion back door or by groping around various other web sites. A simple, accurate and informative reference about someone like Martin is what Misplaced Pages is for. The Wikilawyering article is abundantly clear: "Misplaced Pages policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy." Notability has never been a question in this case. LaurentianShield (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support but preferably with (journalist) - people don't read books these days, but if they did The_Country_of_the_Pointed_Firs#Characters is a more discussed "Abby Martin" in print. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Recent coverage firmly establishes her notability, and I feel highly confident that she is the primary "Abby Martin" that people are searching for. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Of course. In my view, this article should not have become what appears to have been a political football here in the first place. My thanks to Viriditas. Jusdafax 05:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

How did politics affect this discussion?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• NOTE someone moved this into articlespace from drafts at Abby Martin (journalist) -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• NOTE "Abby Martin" has been removed twice at AfD , and the location is currently protected 04:05, 13 January 2014‎ John Reaves (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (40 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected Abby Martin: repeated recreation ( (indefinite) (indefinite))) -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Nope. Protection was lifted earlier today when the protecting admin was pointed to this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment the edit history at Abby Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) could be displaced to Abigail Suzanne Martin to provide room for this draft. The only substantive change from the version rejected by AfC on 28 Feb is the addition of the information on the 3 March on-air outburst , so this version seems to be more or less the same as the version rejected by WP:Articles for Creation. That addition also makes up the majority of the Breaking the Set article... so that information already appears in mainspace. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• We're not "displacing" anything, as the page history has already been merged and all we need is for the target to be deleted so that the draft is properly moved with the page history intact. The version rejected by AfC is acceptable to most editors who've reviewed it. The AfC editor did not properly review it as their comments about it showed. As I've already made clear up above the first time you mentioned it, the Breaking the Set article was created by users who could not edit the protected article on Martin. We don't need it. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Update: upon closer examination, it does appear that some of the page history is missing. Perhaps this can be handled later. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Someone displaced the edit history to Abigail Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That was me, and I think it's not a problem, because I put a template above — here at talk:Abby Martin (journalist) — describing where that edit history can be found.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Irrelevant. I do not think the discussion belongs here. A debate over restoring a previously afd'd article belongs at Deletion review. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I agree. We certainly aren't trying to restore any of the last two versions, and while it is true it was recently rejected by AfC, I believe this was a mistake by the reviewer. Since this is a completely different article than the one that appeared at AfD, I don't necessarily see it going to deletion review, but of course, that is one option. What is wrong with moving the draft into mainspace? We aren't a bureaucracy, so we shouldn't have to follow some esoteric ruleset just to write articles. Viriditas (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• A fairly extensive discussion is here now—de facto. It seems to me that at this point trying to port the conversation to another venue over a matter of bureaucratic protocol would be unnecessarily disruptive and/or tedious. If such could even be justified on de jure grounds in the first place. I concur with Viriditas in that, technically, the proposal is about publishing a fresh draft with it's own references rather than restoring a previous deleted page. And regardless, core 'statutes'—de jure—make it pretty clear that context and commonsense are—de jure—intended to trump pettifog and bureaucracy. To me, the most relevant question seems to be does the article as it stands here now in draft meet Misplaced Pages's standards for inclusion? If the answer is "yes then what else is truly still relevant?

To me, presuming consensus continues to hold that the current incarnation is acceptable, it seems that the next logical step would be for someone with the ability to move the draft to mainspace while accommodating concerns for preservation of page histories and such do so after a pause to ensure interested editors have had a chance to observe and comment.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have to agree with DGG. Regardless of what you feel is common sense or where a conversation has begun to take shape, "bureaucratic protocol" is there for a reason. Reason number 1: people know about Deletion Review; there are mechanisms in place there that make it easier for people to find the discussion, to interact with other editors, to work with the article, etc. People don't know this conversation exists here except perhaps those of us who received a message. If you decide you don't need bureaucracy and just recreate it anyway, or that the AfC rejection was a mistake, you're just asking for another deletion -- and a steeper uphill battle next time. (I say this as someone who supports the idea of recreation -- just through proper channels). --— Rhododendrites |  13:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:PETTIFOGG, WP:IAR, and WP:NOTBUREAU are "there for a reason" as well?

As to inclusiveness, I was concerned about such as well and both posted a Request for Comment and a notice at the village pump linking to this talk page.

As I noted previously, above, I went ahead and commented out the RfC tag. I, perhaps mistakenly, thought we'd already attracted broad enough input and that consensus was gelling towards the article in it's present form meeting Misplaced Pages standards. Leaving as I saw it simply technical issues of implementation to be addressed.

Please note the qualifiers I included in my previous post. e.g. "... presuming consensus continues ..." and "... after a pause to ensure interested editors have had a chance to observe and comment."

I'll restore the RfC tag as it seems I may have been hasty in removing it.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they're all there for a reason. Repeating accusations of pettifoggery, bureaucracy, and invoking ignore all rules while at the same time going through multiple alternative avenues and engaging in discussions elsewhere that each require effort and take more time (RfC lasts up to a month while deletion review is a week) makes me wonder if you're just concerned deletion review won't replicate the support visible on this page? --— Rhododendrites |  22:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with DGG and Rhododendrites that Deletion Review would be the best venue for this discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Just to clarify: while I agree Deletion Review would be the best venue, I don't think it's absolutely necessary in this instance. The Move Request seems valid.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

At this point, while I may not agree that bringing this to Deletion Review is—de jure—necessary, I concur that it would be—de facto—pragmatic to do so. Some discussion and reflection on Rhododendrites talk page helped me 'come around'. I'd like to give Viriditas a chance to 'weigh-in' before doing so as he's responsible for much of the 'heavy lifting' that has brought the article to this point. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - DGG is right. This is not an acceptable way to recreate an article, especially not one that has been deleted 2 or 3 times already. Bring it to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Thanks, Yambaram (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• It is acceptable. If the target had not been protected, it would have been recreated like every other biographical article that's been recreated with better content and sources. We now have a better draft, and an admin has unprotected the target. The only reason this article isn't in mainspace right now is to preserve the page history per requested move practices. Nobody has done anything wrong here, and there is no good reason to use deletion review. Viriditas (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) From WP:Deletion review under Purpose: "Deletion Review may be used 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page." There are no explicit rules against recreating a page in such a situation that I know of, but as you may gather there's a great deal of skepticism people have when deleted pages are recreated (and for good reason). Especially after two deletions, a rejected AfC, and bypassing deletion review, I think you should just assume someone's going to nominate it or even speedy delete it once recreated. Say what you will about the bureaucracy of it all, but going through deletion review successfully avoids going on the defense like that again. --— Rhododendrites |  22:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Someone could always nominate it, but I doubt it would succeed at this point. And it would certainly not be a candidate for speedy deletion, given that this version is far different from the version that was deleted. Rlendog (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think this is a case for DRV. There is no attempt to restore the original deleted article, but rather a desire to move a new article on the subject that is vastly improved over the deleted versions and addresses the issues that were raised there. Rlendog (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

But others think this is a case for DRV for the various reasons explained above. Adding some sources and expanding the article doesn't mean it's become "a completely different article" as Viriditas claimed. She is still the same Abby Martin, whom the Misplaced Pages community decided twice is not notable enough to have an article on English Misplaced Pages. If a few editors here are so confident the article will pass this time (and I agree the chances are much higher now), just bring it to WP:DRV. Bypassing the rules is a bad option. -Yambaram (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but nobody has bypassed the rules here. Do you agree that articles which have been deleted at AfD are often successfully recreated with different content and improved sourcing without ever ending up at DRV? It's never been a requirement. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Then why not request a speedy delete of Abby Martin, and then move this draft to that title? No significant page history would be deleted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Because you're not supposed to use that tag for controversial page moves. Use it yourself if you think it's appropriate, but I doubt any admin will delete it. Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it looks like you have several options then. There's deletion review to review the second AfD of this article. Or there's Misplaced Pages:Deletion discussions to request deletion of the redirect. Or there's Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people to request deletion of the redirect. If you pick one, I'm sure you'll get lots of support.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following you. There is already a request for move in progress. Is there any good reason that process is less valid or less appropriate at this juncture? The request for move has support and should be closed as successful with the target deleted to make way for the move. Why would I file a DRV to review the last AfD? That makes no sense to me, at least. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so we're just waiting for seven days to elapse from March 4? Fine with me, though a bit tedious.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Now, that you mention it, I predict that no admin will move a draft that failed AfC twice into mainspace via a RfM. The narrowing of the tunnel of choices here seems to have emerged by "chance". The admins won't accept anything less than DRV at this point. I don't support that process, so I won't be participating. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well how about Misplaced Pages:Deletion discussions to request deletion of the redirect?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

So here's the deal. I have zero interest in bureaucratic procedures, none whatsoever. I put up with them to a point, and that point has been reached. I am not interesting in arguing over an argument concerning an argument about an argument. I'll leave that to those who are here for that reason, but that's not why I'm here. The basic processes exist to cut through this morass of bullshit, and I'm done with it. Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well done, I would have done the same thing in your place as the lead author. Incidentally, I have created Abby Martin (disambiguation).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion continued

I recently became aware that Rlendog has admin privileges (i.e. is an admin). I just left Viriditas a message on his talk page commenting on such.

Rlendog, looking back at your preceding input on this page I now see that you've already offered your assistance. But that's only in light of having learned that you have admin privileges. In retrospect (hindsight's 20/20, etc.), an explicit declaration may have helped folks clarify options at hand. Personally, I'd taken your comment

"So I would not have a problem restoring the article ..."

as

"So I would not have a problem restoring the article ..."

i.e. "I would not have a problem with the article being restored".

I suspect others may have interpreted it in a similar manner.

Having a member of the ruling class—<wink-and-a-smile>—on board can tip the balance from pleading-a-case to empowered-to-make-change. I'd have felt a bit less tentative in some respects if I'd realized such was the case earlier.

All of which may be moot at this point as Viriditas has opted to 'be bold' and has simply moved "Draft:Abby Martin" to Mainspace as "Abby Martin (journalist)"..

--Kevjonesin (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

As a cranky old-timer, I just want to say that I commend Viriditas's act of boldness. That's the wiki way! -- Visviva (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Does serve the purpose. Though it's unfortunate that he (or anyone else for that matter) didn't think of re-titling—to avoid issues with the existing redirect/former page—earlier on. I suppose, in retrospect, Viriditas could have simply done so from the outset and curtailed this whole collective discussion saving a fair bit of time and attention.

BTW, I think he's given some indication of how he feels about the efforts of his fellow editors who've expressed their support here in this discussion. --Kevjonesin (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I've done nothing of the kind. Kevinjonesin is extremely upset that I moved the page into mainspace without so much as receiving a floral-scented thank you note written in calligraphy, extolling the virtues of his gracious support. The lady doth protest too much me thinks. That, and he's terribly confused about what it means to support the existence of an article rather than the person making the proposal. Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• ptui... --Kevjonesin (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• You are deviating from the ***** operating manual. You should be on ANI trying to get me blocked. It's a useful way of discrediting your perceived opponent and as a former "supporter", it adds a nice touch. Check p. 23 for more helpful tips. Viriditas (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, I just looked at your block log. I think I see now. You brought up WP:ANI a few times and I got curious. Thanks actually. Was kind of cathartic for me to see it.

I certainly see no reason to take you to ANI just for a shortcoming in social graces (and perhaps a self-fulfilling persecution complex). I imagine you'll find your way back there on your own in due time.

Have fun and keep the lasagna flying,

--Kevjonesin (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, although it seems to be moot at this point, my comment about "I would not have a problem restoring the article" was meant more as "I would not have a problem with the article being restored." I put it in those terms of not having a problem with it because I had been the one who had tagged the previous version for non-notability, and although I had not nominated it for deletion I had participated in that discussion with the suggestion that although I still did not think the subject was notable, a protected redirect was more appropriate than outright deletion. So I was (perhaps overly pithily) noting that my view on the subject had changed from what one might find in the prior AfD. While I would not have had an issue taking an admin action to restore the article on the merits once the move discussion had run its course, I would not have been the ideal candidate to do so once having participated in the discussion. Nor did I think that any admin action was actually required, since I understood the protection on the redirect to have already been removed. In any case, it seems like a moot point, since the article did get moved, which in my opinion was consistent with the consensus on the talk page. Rlendog (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hat not needed

A hat note is not needed, because the other Abby Martin is already described at Abby Martin (disambiguation).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And just how would people find that dab page if this is the primary topic? What does this say? Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the previous hat that pointed to the Jewett article. Therefore I respectfully refuse to answer your questions.  :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the new disambiguation page is up for deletion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I've improved the dab page (with help from an IP), and the deletion request has been withdrawn.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Source for her date of birth?

Evidence? Beingsshepherd (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

It should be removed. I don't understand why it keeps getting added without sources. Last time I checked, I think people were adding it from her Facebook page, but I could be wrong. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have access to the California Birth Records database and she is listed there. Abigail Suzanne Martin / Birth Date: 6 Sep 1984 / Gender: Female / Mother's Maiden Name (blanked by me) / Birth County: Santa Clara. --Milowent • 13:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks http://www.californiabirthindex.org/birth/abigail_suzanne_martin_born_1984_16426177 Beingsshepherd (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

9/11 Truthism

Let's not be bigoted:

' In recent decades the term has acquired a derogatory meaning,... ' ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/Conspiracy_theory Beingsshepherd (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Further reading

I've restored the further reading section that was erroneously removed with the strange claim that they were external links which needed to be trimmed. These are works and publications by the subject of this article and are included per standard appendices in regards to publications or works by the subject. If the editor feels strongly about removing standard appendices, then they are invited to discuss it here rather than edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Isn't further reading for sources about the topic? Her publications, unless she wrote an autobiography, should be under a different heading. --— Rhododendrites |  23:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a certain flexibility with headings, but you're right, the question of the best header is open for discussion. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed them because they really don't belong. We have a guideline for those sorts of things: WP:EL. If they're things she wrote that aren't just an incomplete, indiscriminate link dump, we should add them to her section. If they're just random articles about her, make them part of the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. These are her publications and we cite those in most of our GA/FA articles as examples of the work of the subject. You're confusing these sources with those the kind that require merging. There's nothing indiscriminate about these at all. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not mistaken. One is a radio show about her, two are entries in a book that belong above in her section of works, one is a podcast about her, and one is an op-ed from the same state news agency that she works for, not by her. Of those, only one, maybe two, are valid links period. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason for these items not to just be worked into the article? She's not Barbara Walters such that she's done so many different, each notable things. Book chapters are absolutely undue unless the book chapter is notable. What does "Selected Works" mean when it includes no sources? A Misplaced Pages editor decided what was important? Just like with everything else, if it didn't get good third party coverage, it's not worth mentioning. --— Rhododendrites |  16:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Not much of reason not to work them in except that the podcast and radio show might not even be considered reliable sources to use otherwise. There's also a question of the overall reliability of RT, but that's a separate discussion for a separate time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thargor Orlando (talk • contribs) 17:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The further reading section should not be incorporated into the body of the article. Please see our guidelines on further reading and related appendices. WP:EL is not the guideline for this. The relevant guidelines are Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Layout and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lists of works. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:FURTHER is not a guideline, and a style manual is not a content one. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You're persisting in this charade? Fine, tell me which part of WP:EL the links violate. Of course you can't, as you've been asked this many times with absolutely no response. Now, if you can't address the actual problem you claim exists, then there's nothing more to discuss. This is nothing but disruptive at this point. Viriditas (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, the books are notable and there is nothing undue about citing them as examples of her work in the context of a bibliography, which is exactly what the further reading section was used for here. We very often list bibliographic entries in the further reading section. Of course, they can be moved into the selected works list as well. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You filled Further reading with non-notable book chapters and articles and then cite policy about further reading sections? Notable is not something you just declare. The easiest way is if each item has its own Misplaced Pages page, but beyond that sources are needed. Otherwise let's include every blog post, title of every story she's covered, etc. Further reading is not a bibliography in the sense of a list of works by the subject of the article. --— Rhododendrites |  05:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with providing a record of these book chapters she helped author, and providing the full citation somewhere is perfectly inline with policy. The books themselves are notable, and have received attention. We don't need to prove the notability of the chapter. The point here is not to link to her blog posts or to any trivial matter, but to select her major works. These two chapters represent her major work and it is perfectly acceptable to cite them in the article. Further reading sections often link to works like these so that readers can find out more about what the subject writes about, and when large enough they link to separate bibliographies. Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Except it's now expanding even further. That's not what these sections are for at all, and it's becoming an indiscriminate list of external links as opposed to an actual valuable section. We should remove it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thargor, you've been reminded several times that WP:EL is not the guideline at work here. You've also been told in various discussions, including current ones on other talk pages, that your interpretation of the further reading guideline is in error. The section is indeed, being used appropriately and it is not an indiscriminate list of external links. If you have an argument to make for removal, please do so. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is something wrong with it. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a CV/resume or list of works whose notability is based solely on the opinion of an editor. If those two chapters represent her major work, you're just demonstrating the points people had in arguing this subject is not notable. She is not notable as a book author, right? (In the Misplaced Pages sense of notability of course). So talk of that should be worked into the article. Regardless, stick to what reliable secondary sources say are important. --— Rhododendrites |  14:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If she helped write books, she could be described as an author. Misplaced Pages:WORKS#Basic_list_style_.E2.80.93_examples asks us to list all of an author's books and Misplaced Pages:WORKS#List_styles asks us to use "Works" or "Publications" as the title of the section. —rybec 04:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Correct, although further reading sections in GA/FA articles often include these types of works as well, especially in full bibliographic citation while works or publications may contain annotated entries. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that you aren't using the section for that. You're instead using it for a number of bad references we'd never allow in an article overall, and you're using it as an external link dump in disguise. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No such thing is occurring here or anywhere else on Misplaced Pages. You're merely attempting to distract from discussing the problem you claim exists. You need to explain what a "bad" reference is, and why anyone would "dump" them in a further reading section to "fool" other editors. This little conspiracy theory of yours sounds quite mad. Please specify which links you dislike and then explain why. That's how discussion works. But before you do that, you should read up on the links you've been given up above. Further reading sections are not external link sections, as you've already been informed several times. But, I'm willing to indulge you. What part of WP:EL are you claiming the links violate? Be specific and address the problematic links directly. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The only person talking about the word "fool" here is you. That's not my word. To answer your question, a radio broadcast is not "further reading." A podcast is not "further reading." An interview is not "further reading." An article about Martin is not one of her works as you've asserted above. Those, if you want to use them as references in the article, should be moved into the article. This isn't difficult. You want to make the section into a bunch of external links instead, which makes no sense as they violate a variety of WP:ELNO standards from requiring flash (#8) to not being unique resources (#1). Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Podcasts and interviews can most certainly be included in further reading sections, and literally interpreting "reading" as something you can only read is overly tendentious. What can be used in a further reading section and what can be moved into the article is certainly up for discussion. Perhaps you would like to pick a single source and focus on it instead of continuing to talk about many sources? Nobody is trying to make a further reading section into an external link section. Which source requires flash and which source is a unique resource? Again, I've asked you to stop speaking in generalities and to narrow your complaint to named problems with specific sources. This is the last time I'm going to remind you to do this. Again, you seem to be wasting a great deal of time. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, we most certainly list the works of a subject, especially notable works like the Project Censored books. This has nothing to do with the opinion of an editor, it is standard best practice. I would invite you to look into this by reviewing our GA/FA articles which list such works, or consulting a relevant noticeboard. Nobody has argued that these works are not notable, so I have no idea where you are getting that from. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class California articles
• Low-importance California articles
• Start-Class San Francisco Bay Area articles
• Low-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles
• San Francisco Bay Area task force articles
• WikiProject California articles
• Unassessed Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Requested moves