Talk:Katie Benner

This article was nominated for deletion on June 12, 2018. The result of the discussion was delete.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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

Women in Red: #1day1woman (2021)

This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2021. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red

Verification

There is verification of her contribution to the Pulitzer which, among other things, confirms notability to warrant a wiki page: https://www.nytimes.com/spotlight/harass. This seemed to be a problem last time. Also, I have added multiple reliable sources beyond NYTimes and Bowdoin press releases. I have reviewed the previous problems with the article, and repaired them, so that it will be suitable for publication. Also, this is a new article and shouldn't be tagged as "nominated for deletion." I will not change tag until futrther review. Mwinog2777 (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion

I removed the deletion tag. I see Katie Benner every day on TV giving substantive contributions to numerous major news shows. The former AFD happened in 2018, and was closed after 3 days with only two editors commenting. Closed way too quickly there. I see by the deletion log that the 2018 article was a stub paragraph that consisted of two sentences, and only one source. This current version is a much more substantive article with a good deal of sourcing. It would help if contributors added 2021 sourcing, because she has been on both MSNBC and CNN a great deal. But in its current version, there is no justification for deleting this based on what it was three years ago. — Maile (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:Govercon who proposed the deletion, has been blocked as a sock puppet of banned account User:Ineedtostopforgetting.— Maile (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion

Agree with above; article totally redone. When I wrote this article I was firmly aware of it having been deleted previously, and I corrected mistakes and significantly expanded references. I verified what had not been verified. I will add 2021 sourcing. She is a national figure with 71000 page views since I wrote the piece, and there has been only 1 negative comment.Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted personal life section

I had deleted the personal life section without any notice, sorry about that Mwinog2777 and thank you for alerting me about breaking some editing protocols. I did not mean to impute any bad faith or bias about the original editor, I just felt that the content was too personal/opinion-based for a Wikipedia article.

This was the contents:

Benner has been described as "masterful at digging into troubled companies", incredibly thorough and quite witty.[3] She uses multiple message apps, one of which tracks her husband's music habits.[importance?] She feels that "low-key surveillance is good for relationships, right?"[12]

Due to the "importance?" tag and the notice on the talk page: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous", I went ahead deleted it. I felt that it was prying too deep into the subject's personality, even if self-reported, instead of stating facts. I had never seen this style of "personal life" section in a Wikipedia article before. And I moved the linked articles into the bibliography as a compromise. Anair13 (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section was well-sourced, not potentially libelous and not contentious. It was tagged as likely unimportant. I think it would have been enough to just leave the tag in. The point of the paragraph was to grasp Benner's personality and its potential effect on her writing style. With the paragraph we get a better picture of who she is. There is no excuse at all for taking out the first sentence. I stated facts, nothing more, nothing less. You are using your own POV to state "we are prying too deep into the subjects personality?" What Wiki guideline are you using to decide how deep we may go into the personality of the subject?Mwinog2777 (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT - Anair13 I have reverted your deletion. You're inserting your personal opinion in an article through deletion. Either find a Wikipedia policy that applies, or otherwise please don't delete an entire section just because of your perspective of it. Mwinog2777 I understand what you are trying to accomplish with that paragraph. Please try again with a different aspect. Leave her relationship with her husband out of it. I would suggest you change the section heading to something relating to her work habits, and expand. If you want a section on her personal life, make it something like "...she is married to ..." and what her husband does, etc. — Maile (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice; I have taken out the personal relationship issue. She has been described as a witty writer. I added the anecdote to demonstrate such; on the basis of your commnent I took that out.Mwinog2777 (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks OK to me. As she becomes more prevalent on TV news shows, maybe others will expand this article. — Maile (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace

She is listed as being from "Bejing China"; I checked the reference given:

https://arealnews.com/katie-benner-biography/#New_York_Times_Reporter_Katie_Benner_WikiBio;

Nowhere in the reference is Bejing listed. (Also on that page she is listed as a Chinese national.) I will take out the reference to "Bejing China" if there is no objection from others on this page. In brief, we don't know where she was born. We only know she grew up in Vermont.Mwinog2777 (talk) Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and that source website also looks very sketchy. I think it should be removed promptly.Anair13 (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed it Anair13 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese American?

Is she Chinese American? It seems bizarre for a prominent public personage of Asian heritage to have only an "Asian American" category. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is the essence of Wikipedia. No verifiability, no comments about where her gene pool may have originated. Find a good source and change the category; nothing bizarre about that.Mwinog2777 (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]