Deletion of Sarah Jeong

Comment: per , or move to Sarah Jeong controversy and focus on the actual event that led to her being covered in the press. Subject fails  and ; only the commotion caused by the revelation of her old tweets is notable. Of course, if we followed Racial views of Donald Trump|the Trump standard, the appropriate article name would be Racial views of Sarah Jeong, so that our beloved encyclopedia would finally have TWO people with an article dedicated to their "racial views". Not saying that I would support that either… Goose, meet gander
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NJOURNALIST||WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: Meets  although the tweet situation is controversial but has had notable coverage her other work as an author/writer, and appointment to the NYT editorial board are independent qualifications for notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Plenty of coverage per , and the BLP1E arguments above are unconvincing. This seems like a spite AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails  and , but satisfies .  For example, the "30 under 30" mention from Forbes is a fairly trivial mention.  Any stories from before 2018 as {{u|Masem}} notes above are related to the 1E in question; it's simply that they've received renewed attention in recent days ( also comes into play here).  Any notability Jeong has is simply due to the controversy she caused with some public statements.  That's not enough to sustain an article.  &ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NJOURNALIST||WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Speedy keep, in fact. Why would anybody want to delete this  article? That would be just plain ridiculous
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABLE)

Comment: under . A review of the contribution history for the Sarah Jeong article shows almost 7 months of inactivity before August 2. The latest revision before Jeong's recent Twitter incident was on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Jeong&oldid=819369231 January 9, and cites passing mentions and non-|independent sources as references. All of the recent news coverage concerns the Twitter incident instead of Jeong herself. (Note that Jeong is affiliated with ''The Verge'' (Vox Media), ''The New York Times'', and ''Vice (magazine)|Vice'', so coverage from these sources after her employment are not considered |independent.) —&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:IS||WP:IS)

Comment: WP:notability|Not notable. There are two related instances of |sensationalised fame. Who is this lady? A journalist among 32,000 in the US and multiple hundreds of thousands in the world. {{redact}} However, concerning this subject we have to battle over whitewashing sourced content to make it look better when the "claim to fame" is the tweets. Without the tweets what is she notable for? What national journalistics award does she claim? If there are claims it is as a "senior staff writer" then that is premature as |too soon and I can argue that "just that alone" is not really notable. Because there is some sourcing out there does not mean Wikipedia "MUST" have an article on it. Especially of a Wikipedia:Notability (journalists)|non-notable journalist some |''hope'' will be someone. Maybe any news is good news because Wikipedia is being painted as supporting this: http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/05/wikipedia-sarah-jeong-new-york-times/ '''ACTIVIST WIKIPEDIA EDITORS FORBID ANY MENTION OF SARAH JEONG’S RACIST TWEETS IN HER PAGE'''. Some are there (now maybe) but watered down
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SENSATIONAL||WP:TOOSOON||WP:BALL)

Comment: Jeong was a recognized |author well before this most recent dust-up, so BLP1E is irrelevant
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: the coverage is enough to satisfy . Arguing using  does not make sense as the guideline is primarily about someone associated with an event but would otherwise likely remain a low-profile individual, and there is no indication this would be the case here. The event in any case is about her, it is her involvement that is notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: A lead-writer for the NYT? Passes : {{tq|The person is regarded as an important figure}}, clearly, or she wouldn't have been hired
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NJOURNALIST)

Comment: This appears to be a case of verzealous deletion.  is satisfied here. There are adequate  for the old article, and more RS covering the recent incident, this is enough to satisfy . The BLP1E restriction doesn't apply, because the original article is already acceptable, and the twitter controversy is ongoing -- this may be only the beginning of an entire arc of events, it is too soon to judge. Furthermore, the individual and the controversy are closely related, it would be easiest to document the controversy on the existing article. If we choose not to document it, the existing article can stay, there is no need to delete the whole thing (talk page drama is not a reason to delete, that can be moderated in and of itself). Finally, I have serious concerns about the motivations of this request for deletion -- I notice that the article was allowed to stand until the recent controversy, after which a request for deletion was put in almost immediately after. This gives the appearance of a partisan maneuver designed to obstruct coverage of the recent controversy -- if so, this would be endentious editing. Controversies often elicit strong reactions, but Wikipedia is , which is yet another reason to Keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O||WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:BLP||WP:T||WP:NOTCENSORED)