Talk:Karen Arenson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 February 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
I know Arensen only form reading her and from my awareness of a single controversy in which she was involved. She covers an important beat for a major paper and, therefore, has undoubtedly been involved in other controversies and, even more likely, she has won awards for her work and is probably notable for stories she has covered first or better or more intelligently.
She is noteworthy for the her participation in the columbia story. But I hope that rather than removing this entry because I only know this much about her, the entry will be allowed to remain until someone who knows more can post on her more professional work on other stories. American Clio (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)American Clio
Please read WP:BLP1E and address the issue if you want to remove the prod. Relata refero (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the proposed deletion tag because a Google Book search shows that her writing is frequently cited by authors of books, which makes her notable apart from the one incident referred to in the article. There isn't any one of these references in particular that can be cited - it's the totality that makes her notable. Also she is pretty clearly notable for the fact of holding several senior positions with one of the world's most influential newspapers. Any concerns about WP:BLP1E should be addressed by expanding the article with other information, rather than deleting an article about a clearly notable subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This is getting problematic. I am searching for admiring reports on Arenson's work, and keep finding angry, critical ones.
She reports lots of stories that read well when I open my morning Times. But third-party sources seem to criticize. American Clio (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC) American Clio
I think I understand the problem. She does lots of good reporting (I read her, I know) but nobody writes articles saying "Karen Arenson is a very good reporter" They only write it up when she blows it. so, you can cite her mistakes. But if you want to say what a competant reporter she generally is, there is nothing to cite.
so, I could add more links to more people who dislike what she writes or more errors like the Brooklyn Poly thing. I won't.
There doesn't seem to be another big violation of journalistic ethics like the Columbia story. But that one was serious. Scads of coverage. All condemning Arenson.
So, the page is newsworthy. I'm not sure she did ever earn any prizes (except that she gets to work fo the Times and live in a swanky Manhattan neighborhood - which as a life-prize, isn't shabby) . Certainy newsworthy. Certainly a competant journalist. How do you produce wiki-worthy evidence for that though?
American Clio (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)American Clio
[edit] Undue weight
The article as it reads now is not a biography of a person. Rather it discusses several incidents in the persons life. We need to either expand the article to make it a biography or move the content to a different page that discusses the incident.
This article needs much work!!
Can someone take some time and research her? FloNight♥♥♥ 21:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
