Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivia Reingold: Difference between revisions

Olivia Reingold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

All the sources listed and that I could find online, bar the Coalition For Women In Journalism report, do not pass the criteria for WP:BASIC.

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
				✔ Yes
			Reingold interviewing someone else	✘ No
	Database of members of Report for America			✘ No
	Published by employing network		Blurb, trivial coverage	✘ No
	Article written by Reingold			✘ No
			Passing mention	✘ No
			No mention, synthesis	✘ No
			Same as above	✘ No
	Written by editorial board of Reingold’s publication		Editorial is focused on the photo article, not Reingold herself. Passing mentions	✘ No
		~ Assuming this is Defector Media, which Wikipedia considers a “sports and culture blog”	Focused on the photo article. In fact, Reingold is only mentioned when paired with the cowriter, Tanya Lukyanova	✘ No
		~ Blog post written by Jack Mirkinson, a senior editor at The Nation	Paywalled, but the preview as well as the Wikipedia sentence that references it indicate it is about Bari Weiss, not Reingold	? Unknown
	Article written by Reingold			✘ No
	Tweet written by Reingold. Sentence which uses it as a reference is a BLP violation			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

In short, excluding the WIJ report, the included references fall under two categories:

• Not independent
• Trivial coverage focused on the photo article written by Reingold

Independent mentions of Reingold which are not included in the article that came up in a WP:BEFORE check fall under the second category, e.g. [1]. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 11:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article should be deleted. It is slanted enough that it seems to have been written with the goal of defending the subject of the article. 71.120.19.140 (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; her writings on Gaza ultimately paint a picture of her point of view. I see zero in your comment or elsewhere establishing any inaccuracy. For her, its one of those moments where one learns that speaking invites criticism, which is what free speech is all about. If she doesnt want the exposure, she should get into another profession. Mojojojo1776 (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WIJ article doesn’t not have a named author, and WIJ accepts submitted content.

Do we have any reason to believe the article *wasn’t* written in a way to support Reingold’s case by Reingold herself?

Without an author or authorial team attribution, even the one article that meets WP:BASIC is a little suspicious. Testtubewaltz (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article seems solid to me. I don’t see any reason to delete, especially considering the ongoing Weiss saga. Reingold’s work has already been discussed enough for her to merit having her own article, and she’s arguably only going to become more relevant now through CBS/The Free Press.Audio Ocean (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the article should be deleted. Maybe she is a notable journalist, but there are no sources to indicate that. Most of the article looks like a summary of the global news section about the topic she wrote about. Also, Tiktok and Instagram are not sources. Wikipedia article about her should be about her and her career, and not a copy/paste from article she wrote herself. This is a great example of how an article about a notable journalist looks like. He writes for the New York Post, and CNN too. David Marchese

In the case of this subject, I do not see sources that provide at least some form of deeper coverage on who she is. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge. The article needs significant work to be more encyclopedic and not just a collection of extensive quotes. There might be an argument to just move the Gaza section to the The Free Press article (or maybe a separate criticism article like Category:Journalism controversies by outlet), though I would caution to WP:RUSHDELETE now, and give the opportunity for the article to be improved while the topic is still being actively covered. — jonas (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable journalist, who has received a decent amount of coverage from reliable sources. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Reingold just made Oliver’s show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gieTx_P6INQ
• Delete fails WP:BASIC CornellRockey (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Thriley (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I only have the patience to go through half of the sources, but I have no reason to believe the second half is any better. While many of the sources support statements in the article, none that I found are both reliable and significantly about her. Some should actually be removed, such as the links to her being interviewed on TV, her own writings, and ones that do not mention her at all. That would leave a very thin article indeed. If someone can point to 2-3 strong reliable sources, that could make a difference in my !vote. Lamona (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]