Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Bork

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Although there is limited discussion, the one "keep" argument is weak. It cites only one source about Bork, rather than by Bork: an entry by the "Militarist Monitor", which has all the hallmarks of an advocacy WP:SPS. This does not support the argument that Bork is notable because she has been covered by (rather than written for) reliable sources. Sandstein 12:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Bork

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. And notability is not inherited. KidAd talk 02:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would possibly pass WP:GNG if there are sources that her writing has been published in the The Washington Post, the Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal Asia, and The Weekly Standard as the article claims. There are no sources for this in the article, however. ExRat (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment. Did you do a proper WP:BEFORE this AfD? I just Googled her and pulled up a multitude of articles she penned for The Washington Examiner, U.S. News & World Report and several articles from The Wall Street Journal, such as this. There's also a list of articles she authored or co-authored for various publications at Muck Rack. There's also coverage of her at Militarist Monitor which includes links to articles published by The New York Times, The Weekly Standard, Financial Times, The Washington Post, Humanitarian Affairs Review, and Forward. Seems notable enough to me to keep, with her prominent roles with Project for the New American Century and as an Asia specialist for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. ExRat (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, why is it the case with some journalists that having written articles that appear in a number of newspapers/journals/magazines (allbeit wikinotable ones) apparently indicate wikinotablity for them? afterall, isn't that their job? note, i am not saying that Bork isn't notable just that we should expect their pieces being discussed/reviewed by others and/or being sought for their opinion ie. being deemed to be wikisignificant in their field of writing? just wondering. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. She outright fails my standards for lawyers, never having argued any major cases, nor done verifiable service to any bar association, nor been law review/journal/Inns of Court. She appeared exactly once on C-SPAN. There are zero newspaper articles about her on Google. Of the 255 other hits on Google News, only 45 are unique; all but three are by her, or about her parents, or are from The American Interest, which is of dubious reliability. The books on Google show a lot of hits, but almost entirely are about her father. I found one article in First Things by her, but that is it. She has 626 followers on Twitter, which is a fifth of my followers. If you find anything more, please alert me. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.